N.D.Ohio: Mere desire to cross-examine about the drug dog’s bona fides isn’t a Franks issue

Merely wanting to cross-examine about the reliability of the drug dog isn’t a Franks challenge. There still has to be a “substantial preliminary showing” of a falsity, and desire to cross-examine isn’t it. United States v. Robinson, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 122441 (N.D. Ohio July 13, 2020).

“Though ‘a “man’s house is his castle,”’ Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573, 596 (1980), not all castles are impenetrable. Under the Fourth Amendment, officers do not need a Trojan Horse or a trebuchet to breach a citizen’s home—all they need is a warrant supported by probable cause. This case presents the question whether officers had probable cause to search Frederick Jenkins’s home upon learning that the State of Oklahoma was currently prosecuting him for serious drug crimes and upon finding a small baggie with methamphetamine residue among the trash left for disposal on the street outside his house. We hold that together these factors provided the warrant-issuing judge with a substantial basis to conclude that the officers had probable cause.” United States v. Jenkins, 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 21390 (10th Cir. July 10, 2020).*

This entry was posted in Franks doctrine, Probable cause. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.