N.D.Iowa: Failure of drug dog to alert does not nullify existing reasonable suspicion

The officer had reasonable suspicion for the detention from the CI’s first hand accounts, and the information was not stale. A drug dog’s failure to alert does not undo reasonable suspicion. United States v. Hanson, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 26189 (N.D. Iowa March 19, 2010):

United States v. Lakoskey, 462 F.3d 965, 976-77 (8th Cir. 2006); see United States v. Ramirez, 342 F.3d 1210, 1213 (10th Cir. 2003) (“We will not require investigators to cease an otherwise reasonable investigation solely because a dog fails to alert, particularly when we have refused to require that a dog sniff test be conducted at all.”); United States v. Jodoin, 672 F.2d 232, 236 (1st Cir. 1982) (Breyer, J.) (holding that a “dog’s failure to react does not … destroy the ‘probable cause’ that would otherwise exist. It is just another element to be considered.”); United States v. Sullivan, 625 F.2d 9, 12 (4th Cir. 1980) (upholding detention when a “dog did not show a ‘full alert'” but “did show an interest in one blue bag”).

The search of the defendant’s premises for an AK-47 was reasonable. He was seen walking down the street with the gun and a brick in a high crime area, and he disappeared into a house. The officer followed him to the house, saw a bullet hole in the wall, and defendant came out weaponless and agitated. His story did not match what the officer observed. The officer went in the house and moved around a bedspread. United States v. Portee, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 26304 (N.D. Ind. March 20, 2010).*

Three apparent hand-to-hand drug transactions then entering and leaving a known drug house was reasonable suspicion. United States v. Fletcher, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 26230 (E.D. Pa. March 18, 2010).*

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.