The fact a drug dog has alleged false positives (i.e., hits on things but no drugs found) does not mean that a dog alert that led to a search warrant still cannot be relied upon in good faith. United States v. Rau, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 207516 (N.D. Ga. Dec. 3, 2019).<\/p>\n
Defendant on post-conviction failed to prove that his arrest was unconstitutional or that it had anything to do with obtaining his DNA by search warrant. Defense counsel didn\u2019t challenge the DNA warrant because there was no basis to. Holmes v. State<\/a>, 2019 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 769 (Nov. 27, 2019).*<\/p>\n Even if defendant\u2019s arrest warrant was invalid, his detention and search was justified as a probation or parole search. United States v. Coleman<\/a>, 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 35839 (11th Cir. Dec. 3, 2019).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" The fact a drug dog has alleged false positives (i.e., hits on things but no drugs found) does not mean that a dog alert that led to a search warrant still cannot be relied upon in good faith. United States … Continue reading