Category Archives: Dog sniff

E.D.Cal.: Using drug dog in the patrol car didn’t prolong the stop

There was a factual basis for the stop, and the drug dog at hand did not prolong the stop. After the alert, defendant then consented to the search of the vehicle. United States v. Navarro, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3062 … Continue reading

Posted in Dog sniff, Ineffective assistance, Reasonable suspicion | Comments Off on E.D.Cal.: Using drug dog in the patrol car didn’t prolong the stop

D.Utah: Unlatching but not opening car door to look inside then shutting it was attenuated from dog sniff that gave PC

Officers unlatched the door of a suspicious car parked on an cul-de-sac away from houses, and the car was suspected of a theft from a Sam’s store. The door was shut without looking inside and then a drug dog was … Continue reading

Posted in § 1983 / Bivens, Attenuation, Automobile exception, Dog sniff | Comments Off on D.Utah: Unlatching but not opening car door to look inside then shutting it was attenuated from dog sniff that gave PC

CA6: Without RS, two officers get no QI, but another acting at their request does

Three officers were involved in defendant’s stop. Two were involved in the decision to stop, but, based on the factual dispute in the record, they do not get qualified immunity on the decision to make the stop. The third officer, … Continue reading

Posted in § 1983 / Bivens, Collective knowledge, Dog sniff | Comments Off on CA6: Without RS, two officers get no QI, but another acting at their request does

E.D.Tenn.: Dog sniff of car left parked on street was reasonable

The police used a dog to sniff around a car parked on the street that they believed belonged to defendant but defendant disavowed. No search warrant was needed. United States v. Davis, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 219490 (E.D. Tenn. Dec. … Continue reading

Posted in Dog sniff, Probable cause | Comments Off on E.D.Tenn.: Dog sniff of car left parked on street was reasonable

W.D.Mo.: FedEx’s taking a package off its conveyor belt for a dog sniff wasn’t a seizure that interfered with def’s possessory interest

“[T]he police did not ‘seize’ the package until after the dog alerted to the presence of drugs. It was not a seizure to remove the package from the FedEx conveyor belt, carry it 200 feet to the back of the … Continue reading

Posted in Dog sniff, Reasonable expectation of privacy, Reasonable suspicion, Seizure | Comments Off on W.D.Mo.: FedEx’s taking a package off its conveyor belt for a dog sniff wasn’t a seizure that interfered with def’s possessory interest

D.Neb.: Def consented to a dog sniff, but there was RS anyway

The stop was based on a traffic violation, and reasonable suspicion developed for a dog sniff. In addition, defendant was asked to consent to a dog sniff and did: “When initially asked for consent, Defendant responded, ‘I guess so, I … Continue reading

Posted in Consent, Dog sniff, Franks doctrine | Comments Off on D.Neb.: Def consented to a dog sniff, but there was RS anyway

N.D.Ga.: False positives by drug dog don’t necessarily undermine PC for SW; GFE can still apply

The fact a drug dog has alleged false positives (i.e., hits on things but no drugs found) does not mean that a dog alert that led to a search warrant still cannot be relied upon in good faith. United States … Continue reading

Posted in Dog sniff, Good faith exception | Comments Off on N.D.Ga.: False positives by drug dog don’t necessarily undermine PC for SW; GFE can still apply

WI: Use of a tracking dog in a burglary that led to def’s house was reasonable and in hot pursuit

Police received a 4 am burglary call, and an officer with a dog tracking smell and the officer tracking footprints in the dew on the ground led to defendant’s property. The officer knocked and defendant’s mother let the police in. … Continue reading

Posted in Curtilage, Dog sniff, Hot pursuit, Standards of review | Comments Off on WI: Use of a tracking dog in a burglary that led to def’s house was reasonable and in hot pursuit

OH5: It was reasonable to run the dog around a car in a traffic stop where it happened without extending the stop during waiting time

The trial court did not err in denying the motion to suppress where the officer ran the dog around the car within the time of the normal traffic stop. Therefore, the traffic stop was not illegally extended because the purpose … Continue reading

Posted in Dog sniff, Reasonable suspicion, Seizure | Comments Off on OH5: It was reasonable to run the dog around a car in a traffic stop where it happened without extending the stop during waiting time

CA11: Public safety exception permitted entry of hotel room on PC to neutralize a firearm

Defense counsel’s failure to object to the search of his hotel room wasn’t prejudicial because inevitable discovery applied. He was accused of brandishing a gun shortly before, and the gun hadn’t been found. Officers had probable cause to get a … Continue reading

Posted in Dog sniff, Emergency / exigency | Comments Off on CA11: Public safety exception permitted entry of hotel room on PC to neutralize a firearm

W.D.Tenn.: Affidavit for SW doesn’t need to support drug dog’s training, too

The affidavit for a search warrant based in part on a dog sniff doesn’t have to also justify the dog’s training to show probable cause. Failure to provide it isn’t a Franks violation. United States v. Tullous, 2019 U.S. Dist. … Continue reading

Posted in Dog sniff, F.R.Crim.P. 41 | Comments Off on W.D.Tenn.: Affidavit for SW doesn’t need to support drug dog’s training, too

OH6: Trial court didn’t commit plain error in not inquiring into drug dog’s training when defense didn’t

The trial court did not commit plain error in not inquiring into the drug dogs training when defendant didn’t raise it. State v. Jones, 2019-Ohio-3704, 2019 Ohio App. LEXIS 3777 (6th Dist. Sept. 16, 2019). The particulars of a drug … Continue reading

Posted in Dog sniff, Excessive force, Standards of review | Comments Off on OH6: Trial court didn’t commit plain error in not inquiring into drug dog’s training when defense didn’t

N.D.Ohio: Almost immediate dog sniff during stop didn’t prolong it

The officer had an objective basis for the stop, so defendant’s pretext claim fails. The dog sniff occurred almost immediately during the stop and the stop wasn’t prolonged for it. United States v. Martinez, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 155124 (N.D. … Continue reading

Posted in Dog sniff, Reasonable suspicion, Search | Comments Off on N.D.Ohio: Almost immediate dog sniff during stop didn’t prolong it

CA7: Dog alert on apparent residual odor isn’t a false positive under Harris

The fact a drug dog alerts on residual odor doesn’t mean there was a false positive. “Our review of the record and the order denying suppression satisfies us the judge conducted the proper Harris evaluation and committed no error in … Continue reading

Posted in Dog sniff, Protective sweep | Comments Off on CA7: Dog alert on apparent residual odor isn’t a false positive under Harris

OH7: Dog alert on a car alone didn’t give PC to search passenger

Dog alert on a car alone didn’t give probable cause to search a passenger. State v. Chapman, 2019-Ohio-3339, 2019 Ohio App. LEXIS 3422 (7th Dist. Aug. 20, 2019):

Posted in Dog sniff | Comments Off on OH7: Dog alert on a car alone didn’t give PC to search passenger

M.D.Pa.: Dog alert satisfied CA3 standards because it was to specific place

The search of defendant’s U-Haul truck was justified by a dog alert. “Assuming arguendo that Third Circuit precedent supported defendants’ more taxing standard for what constitutes a positive and reliable alert, Trooper Hoy still had probable cause to search the … Continue reading

Posted in Dog sniff, GPS / Tracking Data | Comments Off on M.D.Pa.: Dog alert satisfied CA3 standards because it was to specific place