CA7: Dog alert on apparent residual odor isn’t a false positive under Harris

The fact a drug dog alerts on residual odor doesn’t mean there was a false positive. “Our review of the record and the order denying suppression satisfies us the judge conducted the proper Harris evaluation and committed no error in concluding Rex’s satisfactory certification and training provide sufficient reason to trust his alert or in concluding Rex’s training on residual odors is acceptable.” United States v. Simon, 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 24929 (7th Cir. Aug. 21, 2019).

“The record supports the district court’s findings that the post-arrest protective sweep was permitted given that the officers had reasonable grounds to believe that there were both unsecured weapons and unsecured people in the home, posing a security risk to officers on the scene.” United States v. Jurado-Garcia, 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 24934 (5th Cir. Aug. 21, 2019).*

This entry was posted in Dog sniff, Protective sweep. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.