OH5: Drug dog officer’s touching car to redirect dog wasn’t a search

The officer’s briefly touching the vehicle’s exterior to redirect the canine’s focus did not constitute a search. The dog’s certification and training were sufficient to establish its reliability, absent conflicting evidence from the defendant. This traffic stop was not unconstitutionally extended because the canine sniff did not add time to the stop. The dog was already present before all occupants had exited the vehicle. State v. Bond, 2025-Ohio-360 (5th Dist. Feb. 3, 2025).

This murder search warrant was not stale. It was based on information developed in December 2022 corroborated by DNA and other evidence in June 2023. State v. Barnes, 2025 Del. Super. LEXIS 37 (Jan. 29, 2025).*

Defendant’s request for a Franks hearing is denied. Even with omissions, there remained probable cause. United States v. Witmer, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17909 (D. Mont. Jan. 31, 2025).*

This entry was posted in Dog sniff, Franks doctrine, Search, Staleness. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.