W.D.N.Y.: Moving car without PC for later dog sniff hours later tainted SW based on dog alert

Defendant’s vehicle was stopped and ultimately removed to another location for a dog sniff to get probable cause for a search warrant for the car. The removal was unreasonable and justified under the Fourth Amendment. The dog sniff was several hours later. The warrant was tainted by these actions. “Based on the foregoing, this case is a perfect example as to why the exclusionary rule was created and therefore should be applied to the evidence seized from the defendant’s Cadillac vehicle on June 21, 2019.” United States v. Washington, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 235490 (W.D.N.Y. Nov. 28, 2022).

Defendant filed a motion to suppress which had already been denied. He sought additional discovery of those who might have been involved in the searches. Denied. Another motion to suppress wouldn’t be timely. United States v. Garg, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6086 (W.D. Wash. Jan. 12, 2023).*

2254 petitioner had his “full and fair” opportunity to litigate his motion to suppress and lost on the merits. Stone bars relief. Boyington v. Dixon, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 235465 (N.D. Fla. Dec. 8, 2022).*

This entry was posted in Dog sniff, Issue preclusion. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.