The officer\u2019s questions about drugs during the mission of a routine traffic stop unreasonably extended the stop, and the dog sniff is suppressed. United States v. Chavez, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 110229 (N.D. Ga. June 3, 2024).<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Defendant rented an Airbnb through another with a credit card and had standing. He had keys and a beeper to the place. Essentially, the government didn\u2019t contest this. Armed with an arrest warrant but no reasonable belief defendant was there, the police made a warrantless entry that violated the Fourth Amendment. \u201cEven if the evidence was sufficient to hold that the agents reasonably believed that Cotto-Cruz resided at apartment E-301, the evidence falls short of establishing they had a reasonable belief that he was there at the time they entered the apartment.\u201d United States v. Cotto-Cruz, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 109685 (D.P.R. June 17, 2024).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Defendant\u2019s underlying Fourth Amendment claim was decided by the court of appeals on the merits, and his alternative way of raising it also lacked merit. Therefore, no IAC. United States v. Metz, 2024 CAAF LEXIS 345 (C.A.A.F. June 20, 2024).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
The officer\u2019s questions about drugs during the mission of a routine traffic stop unreasonably extended the stop, and the dog sniff is suppressed. United States v. Chavez, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 110229 (N.D. Ga. June 3, 2024). Defendant rented an … Continue reading