CA5: CBP dog sniffing for people was PC even if it couldn’t differentiate between the driver and alleged hidden passengers

A CBP dog trained to sniff for people provided reasonable suspicion even against the argument of how the dog could differentiate between the truck driver and hidden passengers. United States v. Martinez, 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 12043 (5th Cir. May 17, 2024).

Petitioner’s 41(g) motion for return of property pending appeal is denied. He has another indictment coming to trial later, and it’s evidence there, too, and he can move to suppress. United States v. Grogan, 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 11992 (6th Cir. May 16, 2024).

The search warrant here for child pornography was issued with probable cause. “The district court also concluded that, given the totality of the circumstances, Pena’s suspicious statements to officers supported a finding of probable cause. The court found that Pena made suspicious statements about what officers would find on his devices.” United States v. Pena, 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 12059 (10th Cir. May 20, 2024).*

This entry was posted in Dog sniff, Probable cause, Rule 41(g) / Return of property. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.