The officer had reasonable suspicion for the detention from the CI\u2019s first hand accounts, and the information was not stale. A drug dog\u2019s failure to alert does not undo reasonable suspicion. United States v. Hanson, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 26189 (N.D. Iowa March 19, 2010):<\/p>\n
United States v. Lakoskey, 462 F.3d 965, 976-77 (8th Cir. 2006); see United States v. Ramirez, 342 F.3d 1210, 1213 (10th Cir. 2003) (“We will not require investigators to cease an otherwise reasonable investigation solely because a dog fails to alert, particularly when we have refused to require that a dog sniff test be conducted at all.”); United States v. Jodoin, 672 F.2d 232, 236 (1st Cir. 1982) (Breyer, J.) (holding that a “dog’s failure to react does not … destroy the ‘probable cause’ that would otherwise exist. It is just another element to be considered.”); United States v. Sullivan, 625 F.2d 9, 12 (4th Cir. 1980) (upholding detention when a “dog did not show a ‘full alert'” but “did show an interest in one blue bag”). <\/p><\/blockquote>\n
The search of the defendant\u2019s premises for an AK-47 was reasonable. He was seen walking down the street with the gun and a brick in a high crime area, and he disappeared into a house. The officer followed him to the house, saw a bullet hole in the wall, and defendant came out weaponless and agitated. His story did not match what the officer observed. The officer went in the house and moved around a bedspread. United States v. Portee, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 26304 (N.D. Ind. March 20, 2010).*<\/p>\n
Three apparent hand-to-hand drug transactions then entering and leaving a known drug house was reasonable suspicion. United States v. Fletcher, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 26230 (E.D. Pa. March 18, 2010).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
b2evALnk.b2WPAutP Continue reading