Consent to “look for drugs” permitted a dog sniff

Consent to “look for drugs” permitted a dog sniff. United States v. Vargas-Miranda, 559 F. Supp. 2d 1016 (D. Neb. 2008):

Finally, applying Eighth Circuit precedent and realizing that no damage was done to the car and none of the defendants made a contemporaneous objection to the manner of the officer’s examination, a search of a vehicle that took about 34 minutes from the time of the consent to the finding of the package of heroin (Ex. 1 at approximately 2:40 to approximately 36:38) did not exceed the consent to “look” for drugs even though the deputy sheriff used a dog to sniff for contraband, removed (and replaced) a few screws that appeared to be out of the ordinary, and removed a plastic piece over the center radio console after observing that the glove compartment was missing a rivet. See, e.g., United States v. Ferrer-Montoya, 483 F.3d 565, 568-569 (8th Cir. 2007) (state trooper, with the assistance of a drug dog, did not exceed the defendant’s consent to a search of his vehicle for drugs during a traffic stop when trooper removed screws from console panel and lifted panel to reveal hidden compartment; defendant placed no qualifications or limitations on his consent to search of his vehicle for drugs, officer noticed scarred screws on console panel during search, officer opened compartment in minimally intrusive manner by removing the screws, and did no damage to the vehicle, and at no time did defendant object or suggest that he wished to withdraw his consent to search).

Defendant’s actions after consent was allegedly coerced showed that it was voluntary. “Paracha provided the agents with keys to enter his residence and, when no one answered the door, Paracha called the home telephone to ensure that nobody was inside.” United States v. Paracha, 2008 U.S. App. LEXIS 12937 (2d Cir. June 19, 2008) (unpublished).*

Officer was legitimately in defendant’s house on arrest, so the plain view was proper. United States v. McMullin, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 46829 (E.D. Mo. June 17, 2008).*

Reasonable suspicion existed to show that defendant was involved in a marijuana grow operation after purchase of fertilizer. [The government also placed a GPS on the vehicle, something not challenged.] United States v. Pineda-Moreno, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 46844 (D. Ore. June 16, 2008).*

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.