FL1: Screen shot of of meth on a scale on driver’s cell phone permitted dog sniff during writing of traffic ticket

Defendant was stopped for a traffic offense, and he was unusually nervous. Sitting on his left leg was a cell phone with the screen on showing a picture of meth on a scale. That justified a dog sniff while a traffic citation was written. Key v. State, 2021 Fla. App. LEXIS 1943 (Fla. 1st DCA Feb. 10, 2021).

There are two prongs to a Franks challenge: intentionality and materiality. “On appeal, Pulley does not challenge the district court’s finding that the affiant neither made false statements nor omitted information from her affidavit with the intent to mislead the state magistrate who issued the search warrants.” United States v. Pulley, 2021 U.S. App. LEXIS 3723 (4th Cir. Feb. 10, 2021).*

Defendant’s motion to suppress letters to and from victims in sex assault cases on a reservation was denied by the district court over the objection of lack of particularity. On appeal, the letters were either insignificant or barely touched on, and the court finds it harmless error at best. United States v. Weber, 2021 U.S. App. LEXIS 3662 (8th Cir. Feb. 10. 2021).*

This entry was posted in Dog sniff, Franks doctrine, Standards of review. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.