IL: Dog’s alert before trespass on the car meant GFE applied

Where the dog indicated an alert almost immediately and before the dog trespassed on the car, the officer had probable cause, and the good faith exception would be applied. People v. Kendricks, 2023 IL App (4th) 230179, 2023 Ill. App. LEXIS 483 (Dec. 19, 2023).

Defendant knew why he’d been detained (admitting “for talking to a minor”) and he wasn’t handcuffed. He consented to a search of his phone and social media accounts. At the suppression hearing over his Miranda waiver, he disclaimed the search suppression issue for the time being. The same factors apply anyway, and the court concludes he consented. United States v. Velazquez-Perez, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 224026 (D.P.R. Dec. 15, 2023).*

Defendant’s motion to reconsider his suppression motion in the fifth day of trial is denied. The testimony is pretty much the same as the suppression hearing, and this isn’t the proper way to do it. United States v. Hernandez, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 224114 (S.D. Fla. Dec. 17, 2023).*

This entry was posted in Consent, Dog sniff, Suppression hearings, Trespass. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.