Defendant\u2019s car was subjected to a drug dog sniff in March 2014 finding drugs, but he wasn\u2019t arrested. Arrest warrants were issued later, and two months later he was arrested. A search incident for drugs wasn\u2019t valid two months later, and that search produced heroin on defendant\u2019s person. The good faith exception also doesn\u2019t apply. Jones v. State, 2016 Md. App. LEXIS 222 (Nov. 9, 2016).<\/p>\n
\u201cAfter careful review of the supporting affidavit at issue, the Court disagrees with Defendant. While the affidavit in the case presently before the Court may not be the model of completeness, when viewed in light of the totality of the circumstances and drawing reasonably factual inferences in the present context of this case, it does provide sufficient facts to support a finding of probable cause by the issuing judge.\u201d United States v. Johnson, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 156518 (D.Minn. Oct. 25, 2016),* adopted, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 156654 (D. Minn. Nov. 9, 2016).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Defendant\u2019s car was subjected to a drug dog sniff in March 2014 finding drugs, but he wasn\u2019t arrested. Arrest warrants were issued later, and two months later he was arrested. A search incident for drugs wasn\u2019t valid two months later, … Continue reading