Newer cases hold that a drug dog can\u2019t differentiate between legal and illegal marijuana, so a dog alert doesn\u2019t provide probable cause. Where the dog sniff occurred before that holding, however, it was reasonable under the good faith exception. Ford v. State, 2025 Fla. App. LEXIS 187 (Fla. 5th DCA Jan. 7, 2025).<\/p>\n\n\n\n
There was at least a good faith basis to bring a criminal case when it was first initiated, and the fact they didn\u2019t continue to investigate doesn\u2019t undermine that initial probable cause. Bickham v. Czebiniak, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2496 (N.D.N.Y. Jan. 7, 2025).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
A 2255 petition that only alleges that defense counsel failed to file a motion to suppress to challenge illegally seized evidence didn\u2019t state a claim. What evidence? Davis v. United States, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3668 (N.D. Miss. Jan. 8, 2025).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Summary judgment was properly granted on qualified immunity grounds because the law was not clearly established in 2015 that an officer violates the Fourth Amendment by entering the curtilage of a home through an unlocked gate and reaching out to arrest someone standing in plain view near the street. Sauceda v. Lopez, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 434 (5th Cir. Jan. 8, 2025).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Newer cases hold that a drug dog can\u2019t differentiate between legal and illegal marijuana, so a dog alert doesn\u2019t provide probable cause. Where the dog sniff occurred before that holding, however, it was reasonable under the good faith exception. Ford … Continue reading