The reliability for a dog alert as probable cause can be established by the testimony of the officer alone. Some inaccuracies don’t undermine the dog's reliability because none is infallible. The dog alert can result in searches of containers, here an envelope. United States v. Stubblefield, 682 F.3d 502, 2012 FED App. 0183P (6th Cir. 2012):

... Although Earvin correctly points out that no drugs were discovered in Earvin's rental car following Arrow's positive alert, this fact is not dispositive. The crucial question for reliability is not whether a dog is actually correct in the specific instance at hand—no dog is infallible—but rather whether the dog is likely enough to be right so that a positive alert "is sufficient to establish probable cause for the presence of a controlled substance." Diaz, 25 F.3d at 394. "This court has defined probable cause as reasonable grounds for belief, supported by less than prima facie proof but more than mere suspicion, and is said to exist when there is a fair probability, given the totality of the circumstances, that contraband or evidence of a crime will be found in a particular place." United States v. Howard, 621 F.3d 433, 453 (6th Cir. 2010) (internal quotation marks omitted) (emphasis added).

Because Arrow's reliability and proper training have been established, Earvin's next argument—that Arrow's alert did not justify opening the envelope containing the first set of counterfeit documents—is easily dismissed. An alert by a properly trained and reliable drug-detection dog "is sufficient to establish probable cause for the presence of a controlled substance." Diaz, 25 F.3d at 394. If the police have probable cause to search a lawfully stopped vehicle for contraband, then the police have probable cause to search every part of the vehicle and all containers found therein in which the object of the search could be hidden. United States v. Crotinger, 928 F.2d 203, 205 (6th Cir. 1991) (citing United States v. Ross, 456 U.S. 798, 824, 102 S. Ct. 2157, 72 L. Ed. 2d 572 (1982)). So Arrow's alert gave the officers probable cause to search the car and any containers capable of hiding drugs.

Defendant’s search incident pre-Gant was valid under McCane and Davis, so the motion to suppress was properly denied. The fact state law had no good faith exception was irrelevant in a federal case. United States v. Madden, 682 F.3d 920 (10th Cir. 2012):

Madden argues the good-faith exception does not apply in this case for several reasons. He first asserts the search of his vehicle was not objectively reasonable because the state of Oklahoma does not recognize the good-faith exception and Officer Balderrama should have known that. Whether Oklahoma recognizes the good-faith exception, however, has no bearing on the outcome of this case. This court is not bound by a state court's interpretation of the Fourth Amendment. Wilder v. Turner, 490 F.3d 810, 814 (10th Cir. 2007). "[I]n federal prosecutions the test of reasonableness in relation to the Fourth Amendment protected rights must be determined by Federal Law even though the police actions are those of state police officers." United States v. Green, 178 F.3d 1099, 1105 (10th Cir. 1999) (quotations omitted). Whether an "arrest, search, or seizure may have violated state law is irrelevant as long as the standards developed under the Federal Constitution were not offended." Id. (quotation omitted).

In fact, the mere lack of a state good faith exception would be a good reason for the USAO to take a case. Quirks in state search and seizure law often lead to the "silver platter" giving the feds a search bad under state law but not federal law. Been there, done that.

Syllabus: “Because the Minnesota handgun statute that prohibits a person from carrying a handgun ‘in a public place’ defines ‘public place’ only as government land or as private land that is clearly dedicated to the public for public use, police officers do not have reasonable suspicion to detain a man merely on a report that he possesses a gun at a private residence and on their finding him walking from that residence into its front yard.” State v. Theng Yang, 814 N.W.2d 716 (Minn. App. 2012).

Defendant’s stop was factually based and valid without regard to pretext. Because the trial court’s suppression order was based on the finding of an illegal stop, the case is remanded for a determination of the independent basis for the inventory. People v. Vissarriagas, 2012 CO 48, 278 P.3d 915 (2012).*

Defendant Somali alleged pirate’s Franks claim based on omission of exculpatory facts about his intent to aid the other pirates fails. Probable cause was shown with exculpatory facts, and his mens rea is fact for trial. United States v. Ali, 870 F. Supp. 2d 10 (D. D.C. 2012):

Ali's primary challenge to the sufficiency of the affidavits is born of the fact that he maintains a view of his role on the CEC Future that is completely at odds with the government's characterization of the evidence. Ali's chief defense at trial will be that he intended neither to conspire with, nor to aid and abet, the pirates. The government, on the other hand, argues that Ali had the requisite intent. The jury will make the ultimate determination of Ali's mens rea. But, in his motion to suppress, Ali presses a related argument. He claims that the affidavits underlying certain warrants omitted facts which he alleges show his innocent intent, and that these omissions entitle him to a Franks hearing.

In so arguing, however, Ali has confused the showing required of an affidavit—for probable cause—with that required of the government to prove his guilt. "[P]robable cause requires only a probability or substantial chance of criminal activity, not an actual showing of such activity." Gates, 462 U.S. at 245 n.13; see Jones, 362 U.S. at 270 (the "'difference between what is required to prove guilt in a criminal case and what is required to show probable cause for arrest or search'" is "'large'" (quoting Brinegar v. United States, 338 U.S. 160, 172 (1949))). And "'[o]nce it is established that probable cause exists to believe a federal crime has been committed a warrant may issue for the search of any property which the magistrate has probable cause to believe may be the place of concealment of evidence of the crime.'" Zurcher v. Stanford Daily, 436 U.S. 547, 558 (1978) (alteration in the original) (quoting United States v. Mfrs. Nat'l Bank of Detroit, 536 F.2d 699, 703 (6th Cir. 1976)).

While Ali maintains that his own involvement in the piracy of the CEC Future was not criminal, he does not contest that what occurred was a crime. Therefore, the only question is whether there was a "fair probability that contraband or evidence of [that] crime [would] be found in" the warrants' targets. Gates, 462 U.S. at 238; see Zurcher, 436 U.S. at 558; Mays, 134 F.3d at 814 ("[S]earch warrants are directed, not at persons, but at property where there is probable cause to believe that ... evidence of a crime will be found."). On these facts, Ali's intent was not relevant to the magistrates' determinations of probable cause.

The decision of the district court is affirmed based on credibility determinations. The police were investigating a home invasion robbery in Miami-Dade, and they exhausted all investigative leads, so they tried a knock-and-talk at the suspect's house. When his girlfriend answered the door, she was “very cooperative,” and she called for him. He appeared at the top of the stairs naked, and said he was getting dressed. He disappeared from sight, and the officers heard the metal sound of guns inside, so they barged in [my word] for safety. The entry was lawful, and the further consents were voluntary. United States v. Pupo-Reynaldo, 470 Fed. Appx. 873 (11th Cir. 2012).*

Defendant was sued for student loans and defended claiming the law violated the Fourth Amendment. “All of the arguments in defendant's filings are fanciful and/or incomprehensible.” Summary judgment for government granted. United States v. Dennis, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 84292 (E.D. N.Y. June 18, 2012).*