The stop was based on a traffic violation, and reasonable suspicion developed for a dog sniff. In addition, defendant was asked to consent to a dog sniff and did: \u201cWhen initially asked for consent, Defendant responded, \u2018I guess so, I mean, I don’t really quite understand.\u2019 (Exh. B, DVD of Hudec’s body cam, 16:58-17:10). Later, Hudec asked again for consent, stating, \u2018If it’s okay with you, he’s going to run his dog, okay.\u2019 Hudec confirmed, “You already said it was okay,” and Defendant responded, \u2018To walk around my vehicle?\u2019 Hudec said \u2018yes.\u2019 Defendant did not further respond. (Id. at 18:56-19:06). Defendant never indicated he did not want the dog to be run around the vehicle or that he was withdrawing the consent Hudec and Henkel believed was given to run the dog around the vehicle.\u201d United States v. Goodman, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 213418 (D. Neb. Oct. 21, 2019),* adopted, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 212235 (D. Neb. Dec. 10, 2019).*<\/p>\n
Even with an alleged false statement in the affidavit for the search warrant, there is still probable cause for the warrant without it. Informant hearsay was reliable enough. United States v. Castine, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 213627 (E.D. Wis. Dec. 10, 2019),* R&R 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 214252 (E.D. Wis. Nov. 5, 2019).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
The stop was based on a traffic violation, and reasonable suspicion developed for a dog sniff. In addition, defendant was asked to consent to a dog sniff and did: \u201cWhen initially asked for consent, Defendant responded, \u2018I guess so, I … Continue reading