OH1: Drug dog’s instinctive jump into car window wasn’t unreasonable

The drug dog’s instinctive jump into the window of defendant’s car wasn’t initiated by the handler, so it wasn’t unreasonable. State v. Barton, 2025-Ohio-1904 (1st Dist. May 28, 2025) (2-1).

“As already discussed, Parr had reason to believe Defendant was smuggling drugs into Wichita not on the basis of an inarticulable hunch, but because of the following observations: (1) the owner of the truck was not present, (2) Defendant recently sold the truck to his youngest brother, (3) Defendant needlessly volunteered information, (4) his responses were at times nonsensical and contradictory, and (5) because he had recently stopped a nearly identical truck with a secret compartment for smuggling drugs. Therefore, the court concludes that Parr lawfully extended the traffic stop when he initiated an investigation into whether Defendant was smuggling drugs to Wichita.” United States v. Barrios, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 100921 (D. Kan. May 28, 2025).*

Defendant’s appellate ineffective assistance claim fails. It’s a rehash of the argument already rejected with a few new inconsequential details and wouldn’t change the result. State v. Haslam, 2025-Ohio-1910 (7th Dist. May 16, 2025).*

This entry was posted in Dog sniff, Ineffective assistance, Reasonable suspicion. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.