IN: Drug dog’s half sitting alert was still reliable

“In contrast, here the State established that Maverick was a certified drug sniffing dog with a history of reliability. Maverick’s behavior, even without a full final response of sitting, was sufficient to indicate that he had detected the odors of the illicit drugs he was trained to detect. This is sufficient to establish probable cause to justify the warrantless search of McKinney’s truck, and the admission of the evidence found during the search did not violate the Fourth Amendment.” McKinney v. State, 2023 Ind. App. LEXIS 185 (June 21, 2023).

“The stop at issue in this case, however, was not a routine traffic stop. Rather, the primary purpose of the stop was to allay suspicion of Howell’s participation in a possible ongoing drug-trafficking conspiracy. And because we conclude that the initial stop was supported by reasonable suspicion, we readily conclude that the arrival of the K-9 officer within 5 minutes of the stop and the completion of the dog sniff within 10 to 11 minutes did not amount to an illegal prolonging of the stop.” United States v. Howell, 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 15664 (4th Cir. June 22, 2023).*

“Dubon verbally consented to the [protective sweep]. While Dubon now contends that he never consented, his reply of ‘Go check, . . . there’s no one else’ in response to Officer Ferreiras’s statement about the officers’ intentions refutes his argument.” United States v. Dubon, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 107730 (E.D.Va. June 21, 2023).*

This entry was posted in Consent, Dog sniff, Protective sweep, Reasonable suspicion. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.