E.D.La.: Expert on drug dog handler cues rejected; officer best witness to what he did or didn’t do

Under Florida v. Harris, the K-9 officer was the best person to testify whether he improperly cued the dog to alert. Viewing the video, he said he didn’t. The opinion of the expert who said he did cue the dog is rejected since it is based on the same two minute video because the expert didn’t have enough information to go on. United States v. Guyton, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 79694 (E.D. La. April 16, 2013).*

Defendant lawyered up during his interrogation, but the police asked him questions about his watch and what hotel he was staying at. They got a search warrant for the hotel room. He doesn’t argue that the search should be suppressed because he identified where he was staying, and the police had a warrant. Therefore, the search was valid. United States v. Balde, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 78336 (E.D. N.C. June 4, 2013).*

A DUI arrest supports a search incident of the vehicle. State v. Ewertz, 2013 Kan. App. LEXIS 51 (June 7, 2013).

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.