Defendant was stopped for driving without headlights during a Hurricane Harvey curfew, and he gave a false name and had no driver’s license. While detained, defendant was showing signs of diabetic distress. He was seated on the curb and he was given candy by the officer. EMTs were called, but he ultimately didn’t need them. In the meantime, a drug dog was called, and it alerted on the driver’s door of the car. The whole issue here was on reliability of the dog. There were false positives in other cases, but that’s not necessarily meaningful. In a competition, the dog was 20th of 27. Nevertheless, the dog and the handler were certified and recertified, and thus Florida v. Harris is satisfied. United States v. Lozano, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 209038 (S.D. Tex. Dec. 20, 2017).

The exclusionary rule applies to forfeiture actions (One 1958 Plymouth Sedan) despite the state’s argument. The dog sniff occurred during the normal processing part of the stop. “Police may conduct a canine sniff during the time that it takes to issue a traffic citation ‘so long as the duration of the traffic stop is not extended beyond what is reasonably necessary to resolve the issue that led to the stop and issue a traffic citation.’” In re $75,000.00 United States Currency, 2017-Ohio-9158, 2017 Ohio App. LEXIS 5604 (8th Dist. Dec. 21, 2017).

Defendant was searched incident to arrest for driving a vehicle with a tag belonging to another car. Since the officer did not see her attach the tag, a custodial arrest was without probable cause and the search that produced amphetamine should have been suppressed. Weaver v. State, 2017 Fla. App. LEXIS 19338 (Fla. 2d DCA Dec. 20, 2017).*

Calling for a drug dog after defendant refused to consent to a search did not extend the stop even “incrementally” [ignoring the fact that the radio call took time away from writing the ticket]. People v. Heritsch, 2017 IL App (2d) 151157, 2017 Ill. App. LEXIS 800 (Dec. 20, 2017):
Continue reading →