D.Neb.: Calling in drug dog after defendant revoked consent to search was de minimus extension of the stop

The traffic stop took 20 minutes including the computer check. After that, the officer engaged in conversation unrelated to the purpose of the stop, and this was not unreasonable. Defendant consented to a search of the vehicle, but revoked consent when the officer talked about removing the gas tank. Then a drug dog was called, and the extra time was de minimus. United States v. Torres, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 41623 (D. Neb. March 10, 2010), adopted 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 41727 (D. Neb. April 28, 2010).

Strip search in “public” for cocaine hidden in defendant’s butt crack was reasonable where defendant was not yet under arrest and he consented. The officers opened patrol car doors and other officers stood around to make cover so bystanders could not see. Jackson v. State, 2010 Ark. App. 359, 2010 Ark. App. LEXIS 368 (April 28, 2010).*

A federal law enforcement officer had the authority to make an arrest on property near (allegedly “adjacent”) to federal property under state law. [It sure would not violate the Fourth Amendment.] Alternatively, this argument was not preserved for appeal. People v. Redd, 48 Cal. 4th 691, 108 Cal. Rptr. 3d 192, 229 P.3d 101 (2010).*

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.