N.D.Iowa: RS and PC for stop and then search, so justification for drug dog is irrelevant

Based on two bases of collective knowledge, the officer had justification for a stop and a search, so the justification for the drug dog isn’t even relevant. United States v. Carter, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 45275 (N.D. Iowa Mar. 5, 2026).

Defendant isn’t charged with the drugs found in the CI’s car, so he doesn’t have standing to challenge it. United States v. Hardison, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 44702 (E.D. Tenn. Mar. 3, 2026).*

Franks hearing denied: “Defendant has neither: (1) ‘accompanied [these allegations with] an offer of proof’ in the form of ‘affidavits or sworn or otherwise reliable statements of witnesses’ or any other evidence, that makes the requisite preliminary showing that Officer Frampton knowingly and intentionally, or with reckless disregard for the truth, included a false statement in his Affidavit, or omitted information from his Affidavit, knowingly and intentionally or with reckless disregard for the truth; nor (2) otherwise satisfactorily explained the absence of such offers of proof.” United States v. Lindsey, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 44555 (W.D. Pa. Mar. 4, 2026).*

This entry was posted in Collective knowledge, Dog sniff, Franks doctrine, Standing. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.