MD: Dog sniff two months earlier didn’t justify search incident on arrest

Defendant’s car was subjected to a drug dog sniff in March 2014 finding drugs, but he wasn’t arrested. Arrest warrants were issued later, and two months later he was arrested. A search incident for drugs wasn’t valid two months later, and that search produced heroin on defendant’s person. The good faith exception also doesn’t apply. Jones v. State, 2016 Md. App. LEXIS 222 (Nov. 9, 2016).

“After careful review of the supporting affidavit at issue, the Court disagrees with Defendant. While the affidavit in the case presently before the Court may not be the model of completeness, when viewed in light of the totality of the circumstances and drawing reasonably factual inferences in the present context of this case, it does provide sufficient facts to support a finding of probable cause by the issuing judge.” United States v. Johnson, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 156518 (D.Minn. Oct. 25, 2016),* adopted, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 156654 (D. Minn. Nov. 9, 2016).*

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

Comments are closed.