D.D.C.: No RS for sniff of luggage carried by Amtrak passenger

On the whole, there wasn’t reasonable suspicion for the dog sniff of the luggage they were carrying. Moreover, the court does not find they consented to it. The court declines to credit the testimony of the officer about nervousness and not looking him in the eye as defendants passed him on the Amtrak platform. Moreover, the bodycam wasn’t activated immediately leaving things out. United States v. Sparks, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 48891 (D.D.C. Mar. 19, 2022).

The delay in executing a search warrant for cell phones was not unreasonable, and exclusion would not be the proper remedy if it was. Also, defendant was in custody in the meantime, and he had no possessory interest in the phones while in jail. United States v. Horsley, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 48764 (W.D.Va. Mar. 18, 2022).

There is no evidence of falsity of the statement or that the issuing magistrate abandoned his or her judicial role in issuing the warrant. United States v. Hernandez, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 48984 (D.Neb. Feb. 22, 2022).*

This entry was posted in Cell phones, Good faith exception, Mail and packages, Warrant execution. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.