Dog alert on a package, without more, did not authorize entry on a controlled delivery

Officers entered and seized a package after a controlled delivery where a dog alerted to the box but it had never been opened. After a search warrant was issued for the box, it was “conspicuously devoid of narcotics, containing only sandals, two packages of underwear, two boxes of cold compresses for injuries, a figurine, a white visor, and women’s shirts wrapped in a towel.” The district court erred in granting summary judgment to the officers on both liability and qualified immunity for their conduct. Moreover, the officer’s alternative arguments on appeal were rejected because they were never presented to the district court. Demayo v. Nugent, 517 F.3d 11 (1st Cir. 2008). Comment: This is just the kind of case the Supreme Court was talking about in Malley v. Briggs: “As the qualified immunity defense has evolved, it provides ample protection to all but the plainly incompetent or those who knowingly violate the law.” This was incompetence afoot: a dog alert but no opening the package? This only proves that police officers are blindly ignorant to false alerts by police dogs.

Ohio’s DNA collection statute is constitutional. Wilson v. Collins, 517 F.3d 421, 2008 FED App. 0088P (6th Cir. 2008). Comment: No court has yet disagreed, so why publish this?

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.