Defense counsel not subpoenaing the drug dog’s records wasn’t prejudicial where defendant can’t show that the drug dog’s use would be disallowed in the case. “There is no reason to believe that any additional information would have altered the probable cause determination or resulted in the suppression of evidence.” United States v. Mathews, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 34121 (D. Minn. March 9, 2017).
The informant hearsay here (analyzed under Aguilar-Spinelli under state law) was sufficient to provide probable cause for defendant’s arrest and search incident. Everything else flowed from that, and inevitable discovery even applies. State v. Smith, 2017 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 190 (March 14, 2017).*