CA7: Controlled buy justified stop, dog sniff, and search

The controlled buy off defendant gave probable cause to search his car after he left it, irrespective of an alleged pretextual traffic stop and use of a drug dog. United States v. Randle, 2026 U.S. App. LEXIS 22657 (7th Cir. July 29, 2026).

“This information, in and of itself, created probable cause that Defendant was involved in the sale of controlled substances and, further, that evidence of such sales would be at the Y Street Residence.” United States v. Terry, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 167819 (D. Neb. July 9, 2026).*

Stone v. Powell doesn’t apply to a Fifth Amendment due process claim. As for unreasonable application of SCOTUS cases, there wasn’t. Hadley v. Sec’y, Dep’t of Corr., 2026 U.S. App. LEXIS 22622 (11th Cir. July 29, 2026).*

Defendant admits he abandoned his gun, so the question is whether he was unreasonably seized before that. He wasn’t. United States v. Bailey, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 168051 (N.D. Ga. June 3, 2026).*

This entry was posted in Abandonment, Automobile exception, Dog sniff, Issue preclusion, Privileges, Probable cause. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.