TX5: Pre-Jardines dog sniff was apparently valid at the time and wouldn’t be suppressed

Defendant’s home was subjected to a dog sniff a year before Jardines. Relying on that, the trial court suppressed. Because enough Texas cases held similar searches were valid prior to Jardines, the court concludes that the exclusionary rule would not be served by suppressing here when there was good faith reliance on prior case law. State v. Davis, 2018 Tex. App. LEXIS 2305 (Tex. App. – Dallas Mar. 29, 2018).

COA on a 2255 is denied. Petitioner can’t show that the outcome would be different quibbling over the district court’s use of “tipster” where the district court already found probable cause from the CI’s story. United States v. Manning, 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 7916 (10th Cir. Mar. 29, 2018).

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

Comments are closed.