\u201c[W]here a dog only partially and briefly pokes their head into the interior of a vehicle, as Cody did here, such does not constitute a search. Fellmy, 165 F.4th at 506 (citing Caballes, 543 U.S. at 408-09) (finding a dog partially poking their head through an open window was not a search). Thus, this Court finds that Trooper Boetcher and Deputy Gunnell had reasonable suspicion to initiate use of the canine and did not violate the Fourth Amendment by doing something to encourage or in some way facilitate Cody to physically intrude the vehicle.\u201d United States v. Williams, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 173218 (S.D. Ohio Aug. 4, 2026).<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201cHere, it is clear that the officers approached their probable cause determination with fluidity\u2014they initially did not feel that they had enough footing upon which they could justify a search of Mr. Pope’s vehicle but later gathered additional information that formed the basis for probable cause. Weighing the physical evidence that Mrs. Pope had provided\u2014bags of bullets and the gun case, along with confirmation from A.D. that Mr. Pope frequently carried a gun, Mr. Pope’s felony status, and his family’s dogged interest in obtaining the keys to the cars\u2014the officers determined that the bar for probable cause to search Mr. Pope’s cars\u2014which is not a high one\u2014had been met. The Court agrees.\u201d United States v. Pope, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 171229 (E.D. Va. July 31, 2026).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
\u201c[W]here a dog only partially and briefly pokes their head into the interior of a vehicle, as Cody did here, such does not constitute a search. Fellmy, 165 F.4th at 506 (citing Caballes, 543 U.S. at 408-09) (finding a dog … Continue reading