The first dog sniff didn\u2019t provide probable cause, but it did provide reasonable suspicion to continue the stop longer. Then a second sniff didn\u2019t either. Motion to suppress granted. United States v. Copeland, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 178749 (N.D. Ohio Aug. 11, 2026).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201cMoreover, his claim \u2026 that his appellate counsel was ineffective for failing to raise a Fourth Amendment issue on direct appeal are raised for the first time in his COA motion and, accordingly, this court lacks jurisdiction to consider them.\u201d United States v. Najera, 2026 U.S. App. LEXIS 23934 (5th Cir. Aug. 5, 2026).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Warrantless seizure of defendant\u2019s cell phone was reasonable during a drug investigation where the cell phone was linked to the crime because the co-conspirators were talking on the phone regularly during the conspiracy. United States v. Veilleux, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 176947 (D. Mont. Aug. 7, 2026).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
The first dog sniff didn\u2019t provide probable cause, but it did provide reasonable suspicion to continue the stop longer. Then a second sniff didn\u2019t either. Motion to suppress granted. United States v. Copeland, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 178749 (N.D. Ohio … Continue reading