Reliability of a drug dog is not indicated solely by finding or not finding drugs because dogs alert on odor

Under the standard that probable cause is present when a drug dog that is reliable alerts, unreliability is not shown by the absence of drugs when the dog alerts. Dogs alert on odor and not just presence of drugs. The dog’s alerts in the past were not always false positives as defendant argued; instead, they were indications of the presence of drugs in the past. State v. Nguyen, 2007 SD 4, 726 N.W.2d 871 (January 3, 2007).

Because law in the circuit was unclear, the fact a city officer was outside of his jurisdiction when he stopped plaintiff is considered a factor in overall reasonableness of an arrest under the Fourth Amendment. Rose v. City of Mulberry, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 372 (W.D. Ark. January 4, 2007).*

Pringle supported an arrest of the defendants who were bar bouncers sitting at a table when cocaine was tossed below the table. There was a strong inference in the case that both defendants were dealing drugs in the bar and both knew about each other’s activities. People v. Long, 308 Ill. Dec. 270, 861 N.E.2d 335 (2d Dist. January 3, 2007):

We recognize that the Court in Pringle distinguished the relatively small automobile that the defendant and his companions occupied from the public tavern in which the defendant in Ybarra was located. Pringle, 540 U.S. at 373, 157 L. Ed. 2d at 776-77, 124 S. Ct. at 801. In this case, however, it is important to note that an inference of common enterprise is not reached based on Vargas’s and defendant’s presence in a public tavern. Rather, the inference is based on their roles as bouncers, and the concomitant activities of bouncers, in a bar where the bouncers were known to deal cocaine.

While past cases in Tennessee have held that crossing the white line once is not reasonable suspicion, crossing three times is. State v. Gothard, 2006 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 1028 (December 21, 2006).*