S.D.Ga.: Dog sniff during the normal computer checks are valid

Defendant was stopped for failure to use a turn signal and the dog sniff occurred before the standard computer checks were complete. Therefore, the stop was not extended for the dog sniff. United States v. Broadnax, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 30258 (S.D.Ga. March 3, 2016).

Defense counsel was not ineffective for not moving to suppress and working out a plea agreement where defendant was stopped for a traffic offense and had a suspended license, and then there was a dog sniff. There’s no showing that a motion to suppress would be granted. State v. West, 2016-Ohio-900, 2016 Ohio App. LEXIS 819 (5th Dist. Feb. 29, 2016).*

Defendant consulted with counsel before his guilty plea that it would be better to forego a motion to suppress to get out from under a 15 year mandatory minimum. “Here, Petitioner’s argument fails for the simple reason that the evidence presented before this Court and confirmed on appeal is that Petitioner’s decision to forego a motion to suppress was the product of reasoned discussion with Mr. Yurko — with such decision invariably being reached only after weighing the unlikelihood of success of the suppression motion.” Wintons v. United States, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 28644 (W.D.N.C. March 4, 2016).*

This entry was posted in Dog sniff, Reasonable suspicion. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.