The stop, as told to defendant, was for a traffic violation, but there was reasonable suspicion for drug trafficking considering all that the officers knew. Therefore, using a drug dog was reasonable because a drug investigation was legally supported. Use of a telephonic warrant was not subject to suppression. United States v. Diskin, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 34973 (D. Mont. Mar. 5, 2019):
Nonetheless, Diskin cannot show a Rule 4.1 violation warranting suppression. Diskin argues the telephonic search warrant was requested out of convenience rather than necessity. However, Rule 4.1(c) states absent bad faith, evidence obtained via telephonic warrant is not subject to suppression on the ground it was unreasonable to obtain a warrant telephonically. The testimony established K9 Officer Vickery did not act in bad faith when he obtained the warrant telephonically.