S.D.Miss.: Post-Jardines dog sniff of house and car leads to suppression of sniff of car, even though it’s not on curtilage

Officers did a dog sniff at defendant’s door after Jardines and then the car in the driveway. The car in the driveway is not on the curtilage, but the court suppresses because the sniff of the car was essentially an afterthought product of the sniff of the house. Also, the officer’s reports and his testimony aren’t consistent with each other. United States v. Maberry, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 80529 (S.D.Miss. June 21, 2016).

Defendant’s pro se habeas claim is denied. Officers entered his apartment with the key provided by his mother to look for him in a shooting. He wasn’t there. They left and got a search warrant. Nothing about this was unreasonable, so no IAC. Grigsby v. State, 2016 Nev. LEXIS 553 (June 17, 2016).*

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

Comments are closed.