N.D.Ohio: Two dog sniffs didn’t provide PC for vehicle search

The first dog sniff didn’t provide probable cause, but it did provide reasonable suspicion to continue the stop longer. Then a second sniff didn’t either. Motion to suppress granted. United States v. Copeland, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 178749 (N.D. Ohio Aug. 11, 2026).*

“Moreover, his claim … that his appellate counsel was ineffective for failing to raise a Fourth Amendment issue on direct appeal are raised for the first time in his COA motion and, accordingly, this court lacks jurisdiction to consider them.” United States v. Najera, 2026 U.S. App. LEXIS 23934 (5th Cir. Aug. 5, 2026).*

Warrantless seizure of defendant’s cell phone was reasonable during a drug investigation where the cell phone was linked to the crime because the co-conspirators were talking on the phone regularly during the conspiracy. United States v. Veilleux, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 176947 (D. Mont. Aug. 7, 2026).*

This entry was posted in Cell phones, Dog sniff. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.