{"id":2861,"date":"2009-04-30T08:55:34","date_gmt":"2009-01-12T07:15:26","guid":{"rendered":""},"modified":"-0001-11-30T00:00:00","modified_gmt":"2009-01-12T07:15:26","slug":"en-US","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=2861","title":{"rendered":"CA10: Defense did not show that highway drug dog was roving checkpoint"},"content":{"rendered":"

Argument that a drug dog in a highway patrol car is the equivalent of a roving drug checkpoint was not preserved for appeal, but the argument would lose anyway. United States v. Bravo<\/a>, 306 Fed. Appx. 436 (10th Cir. 2009) (unpublished):<\/p>\n

Moreover, this case is easily distinguishable from Edmond<\/a> and therefore the argument is without merit. Edmond involved a programmatic purpose to uncover evidence of ordinary criminal wrongdoing (drug trafficking), Edmond<\/a>, 531 U.S. at 40-43, “without individualized suspicion,” id. at 45-46. Here, in contrast, the programmatic purpose of drug interdiction which the agent testified to, Tr. 29-32, is carried out only when there is individualized suspicion that a traffic violation has occurred. Because the stop was objectively justified, we do not look beyond that justification to the officer’s unit assignment. See United States v. Patterson, 472 F.3d 767, 775 (10th Cir. 2006) (finding a stop to be justified even though the officer’s unit assignment was to detect drug couriers).<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

The seizure and search of defendant’s home computer was with his wife’s consent and within the scope of her consent. United States v. Thomas<\/a>, 302 Fed. Appx. 558 (9th Cir. 2008)* (unpublished).<\/p>\n

Officer who stopped defendant had independent probable cause from the DEA, so the stop was justified. United States v. Sellers, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1137 (N.D. Ind. January 8, 2009).*<\/p>\n

Police were called to a disturbance call, and defendant’s wife and son were on the street saying that defendant kicked them out and threatened them with a gun. After he came out with a gun and knife and was tackled and arrested, his wife validly consented to an entry of the house to continue the investigation. State v. Adams<\/a>, 2009 Ohio 53, 2009 Ohio App. LEXIS 38 (5th Dist. January 5, 2009).*<\/p>\n

Note:<\/strong> The Ninth Circuit link has recently changed and it has been updated. Its website is more user friendly now.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

b2evALnk.b2WPAutP Continue reading →<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"pingsdone","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-2861","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2861","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=2861"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2861\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=2861"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=2861"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=2861"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}