{"id":2878,"date":"2009-05-07T07:54:54","date_gmt":"2009-01-19T07:20:47","guid":{"rendered":""},"modified":"-0001-11-30T00:00:00","modified_gmt":"2009-01-19T07:20:47","slug":"en-US","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=2878","title":{"rendered":"CA10: Drug dog success rate of 80% is PC"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>Drug dog success rate of 80% is probable cause. <a href=\"http:\/\/www.ca10.uscourts.gov\/opinions\/07\/07-7087.pdf\">United States v. Bertram<\/a>, 307 Fed. Appx. 214 (10th Cir. 2009)* (unpublished).<\/p>\n<p>Officer had probable cause for stop based on speeding in a work zone, and reasonable suspicion for a further detention based on information from the DEA. United States v. Beltran-Aguilar, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2566 (D. Kan. January 14, 2009):<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>Even though the activities of defendants and the Honda&#8217;s relationship to drug activity may have been ambiguous and susceptible of innocent explanation, officers may detain individuals to resolve the ambiguity. <a href=\"http:\/\/caselaw.lp.findlaw.com\/scripts\/getcase.pl?court=us&amp;vol=000&amp;invol=98-1036 \">Illinois v. Wardlow<\/a>, 528 U.S. 119, 126, 120 S. Ct. 673, 145 L. Ed. 2d 570 (2000) (<a href=\"http:\/\/caselaw.lp.findlaw.com\/scripts\/getcase.pl?navby=case&amp;court=us&amp;vol=392&amp;page=1 \">Terry<\/a> accepts risk that officers may stop innocent people); see <a href=\"http:\/\/caselaw.lp.findlaw.com\/scripts\/getcase.pl?court=us&amp;vol=000&amp;invol=00-1519\">United States v. Arvizu<\/a>, 534 U.S. 266, 277, 122 S. Ct. 744, 151 L. Ed. 2d 740 (2002) (reasonable suspicion need not rule out possibility of innocent conduct); &#8230;.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>Twenty minutes for a traffic stop was not unreasonable. &#8220;The traffic stop was not so dilatory that it became unlawful.&#8221; Defendant also invited the officer to search. <a href=\"http:\/\/www.ca3.uscourts.gov\/opinarch\/074649np.pdf\">United States v. Perez-Vasquez<\/a>, 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 716 (3d Cir. January 12, 2009)* (unpublished).<\/p>\n<p>Defendant&#8217;s bare assertion district court erred in crediting testimony about consent was inadequate. <a href=\"http:\/\/www.ca6.uscourts.gov\/opinions.pdf\/09a0024n-06.pdf\">United States v. Mitchell<\/a>, 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 685, 2009 FED App. 0024N (6th Cir. January 13, 2009)* (unpublished).<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>b2evALnk.b2WPAutP <a class=\"more-link\" href=\"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=2878\">Continue reading <span class=\"meta-nav\">&rarr;<\/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-2878","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2878","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=2878"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2878\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=2878"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=2878"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=2878"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}