GA: Dog sniff during the first part of the stop while computer checks going on didn’t prolong it

“[T]he trial court was entitled to find that the questioning and free-air dog sniff were done concurrently with other tasks related to the mission of the traffic stop and therefore did not impermissibly prolong the stop.” Avant v. State, 2025 Ga. App. LEXIS 278 (June 25, 2025).

Defendant parolee was already violating terms of parole for drugs when the PO got information from a lady friend. “Although the caller did not provide her name, this tip had indicia of reliability given that the tipster identified herself as Dennis’s girlfriend and knew his birthday and the name of his parole officer.” That was reasonable suspicion for a parole search. United States v. Dennis, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 15658 (2d Cir. June 25, 2025).*

2254 petitioner fails in his claim that defense counsel was ineffective for not challenging admissibility of a search warrant seeking defendant’s DNA. It was found below to be a strategic decision to not call further attention to it. Messenger v. Warden, Noble Corr. Inst., 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 119539 (S.D. Ohio June 24, 2025).*

If the drug dog’s nose touching the vehicle was a trespass, the dog had effectively alerted by then and there was probable cause. State v. Fitzpatrick, 2025 Ida. App. LEXIS 29 (June 25, 2025).*

This entry was posted in Dog sniff, Ineffective assistance, Probation / Parole search. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.