KY: Def needs to make a record on how long the drug dog extended the stop under Rodriguez

The drug dog arrived while the traffic tickets were still be written. All the record shows is that. The record doesn’t “reveal how much time elapsed between the canine’s arrival and it alerting to the odor of unlawful drugs emanating from the vehicle. We have no basis for concluding that the time that elapsed impermissibly extended the duration of the stop.” Hunt v. Commonwealth, 2026 Ky. App. Unpub. LEXIS 3 (Jan. 2, 2026) (unpublished).

Whether a condemnation claim also violates the Fourth Amendment, plaintiff would have to satisfy Monell, too. 708-710 Mkt. St., LLC v. Borough of Berwick, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 267614 (M.D. Pa. Dec. 30, 2025).*

Defendants moved to dismiss plaintiff’s 1983 case on Heck and other grounds. The district court didn’t decide that yet, so the order is not final and not appealable. Jew v. Dobbins, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 33972 (5th Cir. Dec. 30, 2025).*

This entry was posted in Burden of proof, Dog sniff, Issue preclusion, Privileges. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.