NE: For Rodriguez purposes, it doesn’t matter that the stop was at a gas station and not on the side of the road

Defendant’s reasonable detention pre-dog sniff was at a gas station and not on the side of the road. That doesn’t change the constitutional calculus. State v. Ferguson, 301 Neb. 697 (Nov. 30, 2018).

“Here, the Court finds the warrant described with sufficient[] particularity the place to be searched and the things to be seized. The area to be searched was relatively small—a Honda automobile (not an entire house)—and the things to be seized were those items related to ‘armed robberies or assaults.’ While the warrant contains a boilerplate list of items to be seized, it also specifies a ‘black hoodie with a possible bullet hole, Smith and Wesson 9mm handgun black and silver in color (unknown serial number), financial documents or personal information belonging to the following victims (June Thomas Marley, Hazel Burton and Mark Greulach), a black in color wallet, dark in color bandana/do-rag, gray sweatshirt, cash money, tennis shoes with reflective surface, a Verizon flip cell phone, women’s purse and a dark semi-automatic handgun.’ In short, the warrant satisfies the particularity requirement.” United States v. Hayes, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 203302 (D. S.C. Nov. 30, 2018).

This entry was posted in Dog sniff, Particularity, Reasonable suspicion. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.