{"id":5169,"date":"2011-02-10T19:35:50","date_gmt":"2011-02-08T07:09:51","guid":{"rendered":""},"modified":"-0001-11-30T00:00:00","modified_gmt":"2011-02-08T07:09:51","slug":"en-US","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=5169","title":{"rendered":"E.D.Wis.: Use of a drug dog during a search warrant of a house did not expand it"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>Surveying the case law [well worth reading], the court concludes that <a href=\"http:\/\/scholar.google.com\/scholar_case?case=10622335546539670066&amp;q=caballes&amp;hl=en&amp;as_sdt=20002\">Caballes<\/a> did not bar the use of a dog inside the home during the execution of a search warrant did not expand the warrant. Also, the occupants were present and the dog did not menace anyone. United States v. Jones, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10820 (E.D. Wis. January 26, 2011):<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>Ultimately, as <a href=\"http:\/\/scholar.google.com\/scholar_case?case=10622335546539670066&amp;q=caballes&amp;hl=en&amp;as_sdt=20002\">Caballes<\/a> and the other cases cited above confirm, the touchstone is reasonableness, and I find that the officers acted reasonably in the present case. The dog was present inside the home for just fifteen minutes and thus did not extend the duration of the search; he &#8220;searched&#8221; only those areas in which the items listed on the warrant could be found and thus did not exceed the authorized scope of the search; and he remained leashed and did not bark at or otherwise menace Haley and her child or damage property inside the home. In sum, the presence of the dog did not in any way elevate the level of the intrusion. Further, the evidence shows that use of the dog was not pre-planned. Officer Smith and Emo traveled to the residence and offered to assist on their own initiative, not based on a request by Osowski. And, Osowski decided to employ the dog only after he observed a scale and drug residue in plain view during his initial sweep of the residence.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>Even if the officer\u2019s questions to the passengers were about why statements were erroneous and not just to clarify, an open issue in the Tenth Circuit, it was all based on reasonable suspicion. United States v. Pulido, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10877 (N.D. Okla. February 3, 2011).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>b2evALnk.b2WPAutP <a class=\"more-link\" href=\"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=5169\">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-5169","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5169","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=5169"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5169\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=5169"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=5169"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=5169"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}