ID: Dog putting nose in open window of car wasn’t search; it was dog following smell

A drug dog putting his nose up to the open window during an exterior dog sniff was not a search of the interior. The officers didn’t tell him to do it, and the dog was just following his smell (citing cases). State v. Naranjo, 2015 Ida. App. LEXIS 75 (August 26, 2015).

In a Franks challenge, proof of a knowing falsity is required, and showing a statement might have been merely with reckless disregard for the truth doesn’t measure up. United States v. Barnes, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 113842 (E.D.La. August 27, 2015).

The warrantless blood draw here was justified by implied consent. Defense counsel was not ineffective for not challenging the blood draw under McNeely. Sims v. State, 2015 Ida. App. LEXIS 74 (August 24, 2015).*

This entry was posted in Dog sniff, Drug or alcohol testing, Franks doctrine. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.