absence of any waiver in District of Columbia

2013Id.

2007The government contends in its supplemental brief that “the Division in [] Thomas lacked authority to adopt a holding contrary to the holding [in Mr. Howard’s case],” and “this case remains the controlling authority in this jurisdiction on the waiver issue ...” We disagree with the government’s position that M.A.P. v. Ryan, 285 A.2d 310, 312 (D.C.1971) (“[N]o division of this court will overrule a prior decision of this court ....”) (footnote omitted) commands that our July 6, 2006 decision in Howard be applied as the controlling authority, rather than Thomas, supra. As amicus cwiae contends,

2000However, given the statutory presumption of drug test accuracy and the language in Howard, 473 A.2d at 839 , that chemists have no motive to falsify reports, the risk is such that counsel can easily understand and evaluate it.

1991Therefore, upon balancing the defendant’s and the institutional interests, we conclude that, in the absence of any claim much less showing that the administrative *433 remedy is unavailable or inadequate, see Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 493 , 93 S.Ct. 1827, 1838 , 36 L.Ed.2d 439 (1973), that a youth offender, who is given notice of his procedural rights within the Department, will be precluded from complaining about the denial of those rights on appeal under § 24-805(a)(3) of a “no-further-benefit” determination unless he has first exhausted the Departmental appeals. 12 C.

1991Therefore, upon balancing the defendant’s and the institutional interests, we conclude that, in the absence of any claim much less showing that the administrative *433 remedy is unavailable or inadequate, see Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 493 , 93 S.Ct. 1827, 1838 , 36 L.Ed.2d 439 (1973), that a youth offender, who is given notice of his procedural rights within the Department, will be precluded from complaining about the denial of those rights on appeal under § 24-805(a)(3) of a “no-further-benefit” determination unless he has first exhausted the Departmental appeals. 12 C.

1988Johnson v. United States, supra, 434 A.2d at 420 n. 4.

1985In connection with the latter range, the test of propriety has been expressed as whether the warnings given are ‘reasonable under the circumstances.’ ” Ortho Pharmaceutical Corp. v. Chapman, 180 Ind.App. 33 , 388 N.E.2d 541, 549 (1979) (citing Sterling Drug, Inc. v. Yarrow, 408 F.2d 978, 993 (8th Cir.1969), and analogizing duty to that existing under § 388, supra note 7).

1979Under the Act, a defendant is entitled to only those documents found to be “statements” within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. § 3500 (e) (see March v. United States, supra, 362 A.2d at 698 ), and may not obtain such materials until after the declar-ant has testified (and then only to the extent that they are relevant to the witness’ *121 testimony). 25 18 U.S.C. § 3500 (a) and (b) (1970); see United States v. Anderson, supra, 366 A.2d at 1104-05 (HARRIS, J., concurring).

1978Beyond my firm belief in the absence of any error, I am concerned that the majority’s rejection of the sufficiency of the affidavit in this case might prompt police officers to conclude that candor may be unwise, and that incomplete and selective disclosure presents the best way to obtain a search warrant. 3 The Supreme Court has recognized that “a grudging or negative attitude by reviewing courts toward warrants will tend to discourage police officers from submitting their evidence to a judicial officer before acting.” United States v. Ventresca, supra, 380 U.S. at 108 , 85 S.Ct. at 746 .

1978Beyond my firm belief in the absence of any error, I am concerned that the majority’s rejection of the sufficiency of the affidavit in this case might prompt police officers to conclude that candor may be unwise, and that incomplete and selective disclosure presents the best way to obtain a search warrant. 3 The Supreme Court has recognized that “a grudging or negative attitude by reviewing courts toward warrants will tend to discourage police officers from submitting their evidence to a judicial officer before acting.” United States v. Ventresca, supra, 380 U.S. at 108 , 85 S.Ct. at 746 .