Dog sniff of storage unit was valid

Dog sniff of storage units was not unreasonable, so alert on defendant’s unit created probable cause. The area outside the storage unit was not private. State v. Harris, 2008 Ohio 3380, 2008 Ohio App. LEXIS 2859 (12th Dist. July 7, 2008).*

State’s alternative ground to support search was not litigated below so the appellate court would not rely on it. State v. Hansard, 2008 Ohio 3349, 2008 Ohio App. LEXIS 2853 (4th Dist. June 25, 2008).*

Homeland Security was surveilling defendant in a motel room as a marijuana dealer in Plattsburg, NY. He paid cash and had no check out date. “He approached defendant in the parking lot, displayed his badge and asked if defendant would speak to him (defendant said ‘yes’); he then asked, ‘Do you smoke dope?’ (defendant said ‘yes’) and if defendant had any on him (defendant hesitated and then indicated he had some in his backpack). We agree that, after the initial request to speak, the agent’s ‘inquiry focus[ed] on the possible criminality of [defendant]’ a level two De Bour inquiry which was justified as the agent had a ‘founded suspicion that criminality [was] afoot. …'” Consent was valid. People v. Oldacre, 2008 NY Slip Op 5973, 53 A.D.3d 675 (3d Dept. 2008).*

While Louisiana recognizes standing in any person affected by a search, defendant could not show he was affected by this search. State v. Lewis, 988 So. 2d 789 (La. App. 4 Cir. 2008).*