Category Archives: Dog sniff

ID: Drug dog’s touching nose on the car door was not a trespass

The drug dog’s touching his nose on the car door was not a trespass. State v. Pendleton, 2026 Ida. LEXIS 147 (Oct. 14, 2026). The search warrant for defendant’s medical records for his DUI with injury was particular. State v. … Continue reading →

Posted in Dog sniff, Pretext, Qualified immunity, Trespass | Comments Off on ID: Drug dog’s touching nose on the car door was not a trespass

MN: Risk of destruction of evidence was exigency for seizure of cell phone

The exigency for seizure of defendant’s cell phone pending getting a warrant was risk of destruction of evidence. State v. Laflex, 2026 Minn. LEXIS 592 (Sep. 23, 2026). Furtive movements add to reasonable suspicion. Ex parte Lucio, 2026 Tex. Crim. … Continue reading →

Posted in Cell phones, Dog sniff, Emergency / exigency, Mail and packages, Reasonable suspicion | Comments Off on MN: Risk of destruction of evidence was exigency for seizure of cell phone

D.Mont.: Delay of USPS Express Mail for dog sniff didn’t violate 4A

With no guaranteed delivery time on a USPS Express Mail package, briefly delaying it in transit to look up the names on it (sender and recipient and addresses) didn’t violate any Fourth Amendment rights. Separating it for a dog sniff … Continue reading →

Posted in § 1983 / Bivens, Curtilage, Dog sniff, Mail and packages | Comments Off on D.Mont.: Delay of USPS Express Mail for dog sniff didn’t violate 4A

D.Utah: Younger abstention applies to a person with common interest

Younger abstention applies to a person with common interest with a person who had their case adjudicated adversely in state court. Valdez v. City of Provo, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 204752 (D. Utah Sep. 9, 2026). Information that defendant has … Continue reading →

Posted in Dog sniff, GPS / Tracking Data, Issue preclusion, Probation / Parole search, Staleness | Comments Off on D.Utah: Younger abstention applies to a person with common interest

Cal.4: School resource officers need RS for a weapons search in school

School resource officers also need reasonable suspicion for a weapons search in school, and here the officer had it. At a middle school no less. In re N.S., 2026 Cal. App. LEXIS 548 (4th Dist. Sep. 8, 2026). As long … Continue reading →

Posted in Consent, Dog sniff, Reasonable suspicion, School searches | Comments Off on Cal.4: School resource officers need RS for a weapons search in school

D.Utah: Minor time detours to writing up a traffic ticket didn’t unreasonable extend this stop; the dog was quickly on its way

Minor detours to the traffic stop, but all related to it, didn’t unreasonably extend the stop. The dog was quickly called for. United States v. Alba, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 189133 (D. Utah Aug. 21, 2026). How the court handled … Continue reading →

Posted in Dog sniff, Reasonable suspicion | Comments Off on D.Utah: Minor time detours to writing up a traffic ticket didn’t unreasonable extend this stop; the dog was quickly on its way

KY: Despite lack of nexus, SW sustained under GFE

A search warrant for defendant’s place was because Customs had flagged a child sex doll coming to his house. While the state supreme court held that while nexus was lacking, it remanded for determination of the good faith exception. Looking … Continue reading →

Posted in Arrest or entry on arrest, Dog sniff, Good faith exception, Nexus, Reasonable suspicion | Comments Off on KY: Despite lack of nexus, SW sustained under GFE

CO: DNA could be seized from trash

Collecting defendant’s DNA from his trash out for collection didn’t violate the Fourth Amendment or the Colorado Constitution. People v. Anderson, 2026 COA 64 (Aug. 20, 2026) (2-1 on the state issue; a warrant should be required). Plaintiff’s claim that … Continue reading →

Posted in Abandonment, DNA, Dog sniff, Probable cause, Reasonable suspicion | Comments Off on CO: DNA could be seized from trash

N.D.Ohio: Two dog sniffs didn’t provide PC for vehicle search

The first dog sniff didn’t provide probable cause, but it did provide reasonable suspicion to continue the stop longer. Then a second sniff didn’t either. Motion to suppress granted. United States v. Copeland, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 178749 (N.D. Ohio … Continue reading →

Posted in Cell phones, Dog sniff | Comments Off on N.D.Ohio: Two dog sniffs didn’t provide PC for vehicle search

N.D.Ohio: Dog sniff during initial records check did not extend the stop

The stop was not extended by the drug dog that arrived almost immediately and the sniff was done while the records check was going on. Alternatively, there was reasonable suspicion for it. United States v. Billips, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS … Continue reading →

Posted in Custody, Dog sniff, Excessive force, GPS / Tracking Data, Reasonable suspicion | Comments Off on N.D.Ohio: Dog sniff during initial records check did not extend the stop

IN: Officers leaving car door open to facilitate drug dog entry into car violated 4A

During a traffic stop, officers left defendant’s car door open apparently so the drug dog would go in, and it did. This entry violated the Fourth Amendment. Boyd v. State, 2026 Ind. App. LEXIS 263 (Aug. 5, 2026). The inventory … Continue reading →

Posted in Abandonment, Dog sniff, Inventory, Reasonable suspicion | Comments Off on IN: Officers leaving car door open to facilitate drug dog entry into car violated 4A

S.D.Ohio: Drug dog sticking head partially into open door area was at least with reasonable suspicion

“[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 →

Posted in Dog sniff, Probable cause, Reasonable suspicion | Comments Off on S.D.Ohio: Drug dog sticking head partially into open door area was at least with reasonable suspicion

D.Me.: Failure of drug dog to alert is a factor in totality

The failure of the drug dog to alert doesn’t completely undermine probable case, but it is a factor in the totality of circumstances. Here, the government didn’t meet its burden. United States v. Presby, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 172828 (D. … Continue reading →

Posted in Dog sniff, Probable cause | Comments Off on D.Me.: Failure of drug dog to alert is a factor in totality

CA7: Controlled buy justified stop, dog sniff, and search

The controlled buy off defendant gave probable cause to search his car after he left it, irrespective of an alleged pretextual traffic stop and use of a drug dog. United States v. Randle, 2026 U.S. App. LEXIS 22657 (7th Cir. … Continue reading →

Posted in Abandonment, Automobile exception, Dog sniff, Issue preclusion, Privileges, Probable cause | Comments Off on CA7: Controlled buy justified stop, dog sniff, and search

FL5: State failed to show justification for delay for dog sniff

This being a warrantless search during a traffic stop with a drug dog, the state bore the burden of proof on justification for detention for the dog sniff, and it failed to show that the stop was lawfully continued. Reversed. … Continue reading →

Posted in Burden of pleading, Cell phones, Dog sniff, Ineffective assistance, Probable cause | Comments Off on FL5: State failed to show justification for delay for dog sniff

CA4: Cell phone non-forensic border search doesn’t require individualized suspicion

“Border searches do not require a warrant to be reasonable. And if a border search is routine, individualized suspicion is not required either. But law enforcement may not conduct a nonroutine border search without individualized suspicion. Under our precedent, forensic … Continue reading →

Posted in Cell phones, Dog sniff, Good faith exception, Nexus, Probable cause, Reasonable suspicion | Comments Off on CA4: Cell phone non-forensic border search doesn’t require individualized suspicion

D.Mont.: This ping warrant was based on PC and was not governed by Chatrie

This cell phone ping warrant was based on a showing of probable cause. It was a one-time deal and didn’t involve the factors of Chatrie and geofence warrants. United States v. Kunz, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 148872 (D. Mont. July … Continue reading →

Posted in Cell phones, Dog sniff, Reasonable suspicion, Tracking warrant | Comments Off on D.Mont.: This ping warrant was based on PC and was not governed by Chatrie

KY: Unrelated questions during ongoing traffic stop didn’t extend it under Rodriguez

While the officer asked unrelated questions during the traffic stop, the mission of the stop was ongoing throughout. Therefore, the questions didn’t really extend the stop. Miller v. Commonwealth, 2026 Ky. App. LEXIS 64 (July 2, 2026). The officer saw … Continue reading →

Posted in Dog sniff, Reasonable suspicion, Standing | Comments Off on KY: Unrelated questions during ongoing traffic stop didn’t extend it under Rodriguez

D.S.D.: No RS on totality when drug dog called for

The USMJ found that the officers abandoned the mission of the traffic stop (for Rodriguez purposes) when they called for the drug dog. So, the question is then whether there was reasonable suspicion at that point, and the answer is … Continue reading →

Posted in Dog sniff, Reasonable suspicion | Comments Off on D.S.D.: No RS on totality when drug dog called for

MI: Lifetime SO registration and GPS monitoring was reasonable

Lifetime SORNA registration and GPS monitoring was reasonable here because defendant’s victim was under 13. People v. Vandermel, 2026 Mich. App. LEXIS 4464 (May 28, 2026).* On a successor habeas: “Here, the ground Mack raises in his instant application was … Continue reading →

Posted in Dog sniff, GPS / Tracking Data, Issue preclusion | Comments Off on MI: Lifetime SO registration and GPS monitoring was reasonable