N.D.Iowa: There is no constitutional difference between a drug dog’s “alert” and “indication”

There is no constitutional difference between a drug dog’s “alert” and “indication.” The dog’s actions and what it means to the handler are just a factor in probable cause to search. United States v. Herbst, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6516 (N.D. Iowa Jan. 16, 2018).

Appellate defense counsel’s decision to forego his Fourth Amendment claim was reasonable because he had no chance of winning on it. Lewis v. United States, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6474 (E.D. Mich. Jan. 16, 2018).*

The showing of nexus in the affidavit for search warrant was sufficient for the court to find probable cause. The search warrant’s particularity requirement also satisfied the Fourth Amendment. Finally, the good faith exception applies in any event. United States v. Marks, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6495 (S.D. Tex. Jan. 16, 2018).*

This entry was posted in Dog sniff, Ineffective assistance, Nexus. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.