M.D.Ala.: It apparently doesn’t take much for Caballes‘s “well-trained dog”

Certification of a drug dog satisfies the Caballes “well-trained dog” requirement. “‘Reliability is generally present if the dog is “well-trained.”’ United States v. Nelson, 309 F. App’x 373, 375 (11th Cir. 2009) (quoting Caballes, 543 U.S. at 409).” United States v. Mack, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11831 (M.D. Ala. February 11, 2010).*

The officer had reasonable suspicion to believe that the defendant had drugs in the car at the time he used the drug dog, which, the court concludes, alerted based on its view of the video of the stop. United States v. Williams, 690 F. Supp. 2d 829 (D. Minn. 2010).*

Officers approached a parked car to talk to the occupants and there was no seizure. When one of them ducked to hide, that was reasonable suspicion to fear for safety. United States v. Derrick, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12030 (C.D. Ill. February 11, 2010).*

Defendant was in a national park in an area he rented and he was arrested for disorderly conduct and being intoxicated in public. He was not in a public area when he was arrested. There can be private areas within a national park. United States v. Schaffer, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11940 (E.D. Cal. January 29, 2010)*:

Although “a national park is the quintessential public place,” United States v. Maher, 902 F.Supp. 560, 565 (E.D. Penn. 1995), the public does not have unfettered access to a person’s private, reserved area inside of the public park. Having considered the evidence and the case law, this Court finds since Mr. Schaffer’s behavior lacked a public character. Because Mr. Schaffer’s statement was made in a private place, “then [his] offense isn’t committed.” Taylor, 258 F.3d at 1066-67. C.f. United States v. Albers, 226 F.3d 989 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 121 S.Ct. 859, 531 U.S. 1114 (2000) (defendants who engaged in BASE jumps from peaks in national park recklessly created a risk of public alarm, nuisance, jeopardy, or violence, through creation or maintenance of a hazardous condition, as required to support convictions for disorderly conduct under administrative regulation governing conduct in national parks; activity occurred in a public place, and, while primary safety threat implicated in BASE jumping was to jumper, BASE jumping also posed risks to public at large); Coutchavlis, 260 F.3d 1149 (risk of public harm where defendant is traveling on public highway and behaved in a way that could have resulted in a crash on the public highway); and United States v. Lanen, 716 F.Supp. 208 (1986) (defendant’s exposure was public, and thus constituted disorderly conduct, where it occurred in an open stall in a public restroom), with Taylor, supra (public requirement not satisfied when defendant makes statements to ranger while in the sleeping area of his cabin).