N.D.Ohio: Dog sniff during initial records check did not extend the stop

The stop was not extended by the drug dog that arrived almost immediately and the sniff was done while the records check was going on. Alternatively, there was reasonable suspicion for it. United States v. Billips, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 176422 (N.D. Ohio Aug. 7, 2026).

The GPS tracking warrant and search warrants were based on probable cause. United States v. Vega, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 177407 (W.D. Pa. Aug. 3, 2026).*

During execution of a CSAM search warrant, officers detained defendant while they were holding rifles, and a reasonable person wouldn’t think he was free to leave. [Screenshot in opinion.] He was thus in custody when questioned and his statements are suppressed. The search warrant, however, is valid. United States v. Germano, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 177330 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 4, 2026).*

There is a question of fact for trial on whether the defendant officer unreasonably used deadly force on plaintiff, and the qualified immunity appeal is dismissed. Tippitt v. Iversen, 2026 U.S. App. LEXIS 23944 (5th Cir. Aug. 5, 2026).*

This entry was posted in Custody, Dog sniff, Excessive force, GPS / Tracking Data, Reasonable suspicion. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.