Category Archives: Dog sniff

MN: Apt building common hallway not curtilage under Jardines for dog sniff

Dog sniff in the common hallway of an apartment building wasn’t unreasonable because it’s not curtilage under Jardines. State v. Edstrom, 2018 Minn. LEXIS 446 (Aug. 15, 2018). There was nexus: “Here, the investigating officer had significant experience. The officer … Continue reading

Posted in Curtilage, Dog sniff, Nexus | Comments Off on MN: Apt building common hallway not curtilage under Jardines for dog sniff

OH9: Dog sniff of a car in motel parking lot not a search

A dog sniff of a car on a motel parking lot was reasonable and didn’t require reasonable suspicion because there was no stop. State v. Bryner, 2018-Ohio-3215, 2018 Ohio App. LEXIS 3473 (9th Dist. Aug. 13, 2018). Police had a … Continue reading

Posted in Dog sniff, Tracking warrant | Comments Off on OH9: Dog sniff of a car in motel parking lot not a search

WY: PC existed for vehicle search before dog was called in; legality of stop abandoned

Defendant’s three sentence motion to suppress said it would follow up with authority. The motion and hearing without that authority narrowed the scope of the claim and abandoned the justification for the stop and any state constitutional claim. What developed … Continue reading

Posted in Automobile exception, Dog sniff, State constitution | Comments Off on WY: PC existed for vehicle search before dog was called in; legality of stop abandoned

The New American: Do Tech-sniffing K9s Violate the Fourth Amendment?

The New American: Do Tech-sniffing K9s Violate the Fourth Amendment? by Joe Wolverton, II: For several years, police and the FBI have been secretly training dogs to sniff out thumb drives, SD cards, and other small electronic devices. These special … Continue reading

Posted in Dog sniff | Comments Off on The New American: Do Tech-sniffing K9s Violate the Fourth Amendment?

W.D.Ky.: Backup officer to traffic stop immediately used drug dog, and that wasn’t unreasonable

Defendants’ failure to stop at stop signs was justification for the stop. A backup officer with a drug dog did a dog sniff around the car while the basic stuff of the traffic stop was being done. This did not … Continue reading

Posted in Dog sniff, Exclusionary rule | Comments Off on W.D.Ky.: Backup officer to traffic stop immediately used drug dog, and that wasn’t unreasonable

W.D.Ky.: Drug dog sticking his nose into defendant’s car was instinctual and wasn’t caused by the police

A drug dog sticking his nose into defendant’s car was instinctual and wasn’t caused by the police, following United States v. Sharp, 689 F.3d 616 (6th Cir. 2012). United States v. Miles, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 66899 (W.D. Ky. Apr. … Continue reading

Posted in Dog sniff | Comments Off on W.D.Ky.: Drug dog sticking his nose into defendant’s car was instinctual and wasn’t caused by the police

TX5: Pre-Jardines dog sniff was apparently valid at the time and wouldn’t be suppressed

Defendant’s home was subjected to a dog sniff a year before Jardines. Relying on that, the trial court suppressed. Because enough Texas cases held similar searches were valid prior to Jardines, the court concludes that the exclusionary rule would not … Continue reading

Posted in Curtilage, Dog sniff, Good faith exception | Comments Off on TX5: Pre-Jardines dog sniff was apparently valid at the time and wouldn’t be suppressed

KY: Deploying drug dog at the beginning of the stop without reasonable suspicion unreasonably prolonged the stop in violation of Rodriguez

Defendant was stopped for not using a turn signal. Deploying the drug dog at the beginning of the stop without reasonable suspicion unreasonably prolonged the stop in violation of Rodriguez. Commonwealth v. Smith, 2018 Ky. LEXIS 128 (Mar. 26, 2018):

Posted in Dog sniff, Reasonableness | Comments Off on KY: Deploying drug dog at the beginning of the stop without reasonable suspicion unreasonably prolonged the stop in violation of Rodriguez

CA8: No standing to challenge a DEA administrative subpoena just used to identify his storage unit for a dog sniff

Defendant had no standing to complain that a DEA administrative subpoena was used to identify the storage unit that was his so the DEA could use a drug dog on his storage unit. Defendant’s plain error argument that a tracking … Continue reading

Posted in Administrative search, Dog sniff, Probable cause, Standing | Comments Off on CA8: No standing to challenge a DEA administrative subpoena just used to identify his storage unit for a dog sniff

OH8: Trash pull helped corroborate informant hearsay

The police received informant hearsay, and sought to corroborate it, and a trash pull did it. State v. Rieves, 2018-Ohio-955, 2018 Ohio App. LEXIS 1021 (8th Dist. Mar. 15, 2018). The town’s housing inspection scheme is reasonable under the Fourth … Continue reading

Posted in Administrative search, Dog sniff, Informant hearsay | Comments Off on OH8: Trash pull helped corroborate informant hearsay

NE: Because of direct evidence def was involved in crime, computer search history was harmless error, if error at all

Defendant challenged the search for lack of probable cause of the search history of his computer that produced evidence he searched for violent pornographic videos that matched how the victim was killed. There was direct evidence he was involved in … Continue reading

Posted in Dog sniff, Standards of review | Comments Off on NE: Because of direct evidence def was involved in crime, computer search history was harmless error, if error at all

N.D.Iowa: On totality, dog alert was reliable; not much difference between an “alert” and an “indication”

On the totality of the evidence, recognizing that dog sniffs can be unreliable (see quote), the court finds this one reliable. Also, there isn’t much difference here between a dog “alert” and an “indication.” United States v. Herbst, 2017 U.S. … Continue reading

Posted in Dog sniff | Comments Off on N.D.Iowa: On totality, dog alert was reliable; not much difference between an “alert” and an “indication”