Defense counsel’s failure to object to the search of his hotel room wasn’t prejudicial because inevitable discovery applied. He was accused of brandishing a gun shortly before, and the gun hadn’t been found. Officers had probable cause to get a search warrant, but they also had the public safety exception to find and neutralize the gun. Thompson v. United States, 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 30918 (11th Cir. Oct. 17, 2019).
Despite some “confusing terminology,” the court finds the officer’s testimony credible on the dog sniff and it’s prelude. A second dog sniff of a vehicle shortly after the first is not a “search” either. United States v. Dunnigan, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 180018 (W.D. N.Y. Oct. 17, 2019).
On review of the USMJ’ R&R, the court concludes that there is something lacking. But, it’s not apparent the government will attempt to use what was derived from that stop in its case in chief. Once it decides, the hearing will reopen. United States v. Bourassa, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 180208 (N.D. Ga. Oct. 18, 2019).*