Dog sniff was independent of an illegal search after the dog was called, so the dog sniff supported the search. United States v. Rendon, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 86409 (M.D. Ala. September 21, 2009):
While the Eleventh Circuit has not squarely addressed whether a canine sniff can provide an independent source of probable cause that justifies the admission of otherwise tainted evidence, several other circuits and district courts have addressed the subject. For example, in United States v. Forbes, 528 F.3d 1273 (10th Cir. 2008), government agents searched the interior of defendant’s tractor-trailer, allegedly in violation of the Fourth Amendment, and then conducted a canine sniff of the exterior of the tractor-trailer. Id. at 1275-76. During the sniff, the canine alerted to drugs in the tractor-trailer, which was subsequently searched. Id. The Tenth Circuit determined that the evidence was admissible because the officers did not obtain the evidence as a result of an illegal search but rather through the independent source of a dog sniff. Id. at 1280. Notably, the initial illegal search yielded no contraband or evidence of wrongdoing, so it could not be said that the canine sniff was dependent on the prior illegal search. Id. Other authority, relied upon by the Magistrate Judge, similarly supports the proposition that a subsequent canine sniff can purge the taint resulting from a prior illegal search, and thus provide the probable cause necessary for the admission of any obtained evidence. See United States v. Moore, 329 F.3d 399, 404-05 (5th Cir. 2003); United States v. Harris, 175 F.3d 1017 (4th Cir. 1999); United States v. Jackson, 548 F. Supp. 2d 1314, 1324 (M.D. Fla. 2008).
In this case, the Magistrate Judge concluded that the decision to conduct a canine search was not in any way reliant upon the earlier illegal search conducted by Troopers Cox and Faulk (Doc. # 43, p. 11). This conclusion was based on the factual finding that the canine was called before any illegal search of the tractor-trailer took place (Doc. # 43, p. 2-3; Doc. # 42, p. 39, 52). Accepting the factual finding that the canine was called before any illegal search occurred, the court agrees that the canine sniff was a sufficiently distinguishable means of obtaining the probable cause necessary to justify the search and purge any taint from the prior illegal search in this case.
Contrary to defendant’s assertion, defense counsel did file a motion to suppress and it was considered on the merits and denied, so he cannot raise IAC on this ground. United States v. Whitehead, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 86184 (N.D. Tex. September 21, 2009).*
Defendant’s guilty plea waived his claim after the plea that the consent form was forged. United States v. Hayes, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 86707 (N.D. Fla. August 31, 2009).*
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.
"If it was easy, everybody would be doing it. It isn't, and they don't." —Me
"Life is not a matter of holding good cards, but of playing a poor hand well." –Josh Billings (pseudonym of Henry Wheeler Shaw), Josh Billings on Ice, and Other Things (1868) (erroneously attributed to Robert Louis Stevenson, among others)
“I am still learning.” —Domenico Giuntalodi (but misattributed to Michelangelo Buonarroti (common phrase throughout 1500's)).
"Love work; hate mastery over others; and avoid intimacy with the government."
—Shemaya, in the Thalmud
"It is a pleasant world we live in, sir, a very pleasant world. There are bad people in it, Mr. Richard, but if there were no bad people, there would be no good lawyers."
—Charles Dickens, “The Old Curiosity Shop ... With a Frontispiece. From a Painting by Geo. Cattermole, Etc.” 255 (1848)
"A system of law that not only makes certain conduct criminal, but also lays down rules for the conduct of the authorities, often becomes complex in its application to individual cases, and will from time to time produce imperfect results, especially if one's attention is confined to the particular case at bar. Some criminals do go free because of the necessity of keeping government and its servants in their place. That is one of the costs of having and enforcing a Bill of Rights. This country is built on the assumption that the cost is worth paying, and that in the long run we are all both freer and safer if the Constitution is strictly enforced." —Williams v. Nix, 700 F. 2d 1164, 1173 (8th Cir. 1983) (Richard Sheppard Arnold, J.), rev'd Nix v. Williams, 467 US. 431 (1984).
"The criminal goes free, if he must, but it is the law that sets him free. Nothing can destroy a government more quickly than its failure to observe its own laws, or worse, its disregard of the charter of its own existence." —Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643, 659 (1961).
"Any costs the exclusionary rule are costs imposed directly by the Fourth Amendment."
—Yale Kamisar, 86 Mich.L.Rev. 1, 36 n. 151 (1987).
"There have been powerful hydraulic pressures throughout our history that bear heavily on the Court to water down constitutional guarantees and give the police the upper hand. That hydraulic pressure has probably never been greater than it is today." — Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 39 (1968) (Douglas, J., dissenting).
"The great end, for which men entered into society, was to secure their property." —Entick v. Carrington, 19 How.St.Tr. 1029, 1066, 95 Eng. Rep. 807 (C.P. 1765)
"It is a fair summary of history to say that the safeguards of liberty have frequently been forged in controversies involving not very nice people. And so, while we are concerned here with a shabby defrauder, we must deal with his case in the context of what are really the great themes expressed by the Fourth Amendment." —United States v. Rabinowitz, 339 U.S. 56, 69 (1950) (Frankfurter, J., dissenting)
"The course of true law pertaining to searches and seizures, as enunciated here, has not–to put it mildly–run smooth." —Chapman v. United States, 365 U.S. 610, 618 (1961) (Frankfurter, J., concurring).
"A search is a search, even if it happens to disclose nothing but the bottom of a turntable." —Arizona v. Hicks, 480 U.S. 321, 325 (1987)
"For the Fourth Amendment protects people, not places. What a person knowingly exposes to the public, even in his own home or office, is not a subject of Fourth Amendment protection. ... But what he seeks to preserve as private, even in an area accessible to the public, may be constitutionally protected." —Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347, 351 (1967)
“Experience should teach us to be most on guard to protect liberty when the Government’s purposes are beneficent. Men born to freedom are naturally alert to repel invasion of their liberty by evil-minded rulers. The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well-meaning but without understanding.” —United States v. Olmstead, 277 U.S. 438, 479 (1925) (Brandeis, J., dissenting)
“Liberty—the freedom from unwarranted intrusion by government—is as easily lost through insistent nibbles by government officials who seek to do their jobs too well as by those whose purpose it is to oppress; the piranha can be as deadly as the shark.” —United States v. $124,570, 873 F.2d 1240, 1246 (9th Cir. 1989)
"You can't always get what you want / But if you try sometimes / You just might find / You get what you need." —Mick Jagger & Keith Richards, Let it Bleed (album, 1969)
"In Germany, they first came for the communists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a communist. Then they came for the Jews, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist. Then they came for the Catholics and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Catholic. Then they came for me–and by that time there was nobody left to speak up."
—Martin Niemöller (1945) [he served seven years in a concentration camp]
“Children grow up thinking the adult world is ordered, rational, fit for purpose. It’s crap. Becoming a man is realising that it’s all rotten. Realising how to celebrate that rottenness, that’s freedom.” – John le Carré, The Night Manager (1993), line by Richard Roper
"The point of the Fourth Amendment, which often is not grasped by zealous officers, is not that it denies law enforcement the support of the usual inferences which reasonable men draw from evidence. Its protection consists in requiring that those inferences be drawn by a neutral and detached magistrate instead of being judged by the officer engaged in the often competitive enterprise of ferreting out crime." —Johnson v. United States, 333 U.S. 10, 13-14 (1948)
The book was dedicated in the first (1982) and sixth (2025) editions to Justin William Hall (1975-2025). He was three when this project started in 1978.
