Peter was found guilty of operating a motor vehicle with a detectable amount of a restricted controlled substance in his blood. He moved to suppress the marijuana that the police seized from his car, arguably in violation of the plainharm view doctrine and lost. The court of appeals found the argument baffling. Peter wasn’t convicted of possessing marijuana. He didn’t challenge the blood draw. And he didn’t link the search of his car to the blood draw that led to his conviction. Bottom line: harmless error.