W.D.Mo.: Dog alert on an airplane PC for SW

Defendant was flying a small aircraft, and he diverted from the flight plan. Local police were alerted, and a dog sniff was made of the airplane. The police went to the hotel where defendant was staying to talk to him, and he attempted to flee. A search warrant for the airplane based on a dog alert was probable cause under Florida v. Harris. It was not a Franks violation to fail to mention that defendant was detained before the search warrant was issued. What relevance is that? United States v. Jackson, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 53004 (W.D. Mo. March 7, 2014).*

Defendant had been arrested in a drug raid and Mirandized. After things settled down, he voluntarily consented to a search of his cell phone. While he was not advised of a right to refuse a search of his cell phone, he’d been Mirandized and was at least of average intelligence. United States v. Hercules, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 53093 (D. Vt. April 17, 2014).*

Defendant’s alleged lane violation was not enough to base the stop on, but there were other grounds. Defendant’s papers were returned to him and then he was asked for consent. The consent was otherwise voluntary. United States v. Pickel, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 53530 (D. Kan. April 2, 2014), adopted (D. Kan. April 16, 2014).*