OH3: Where PC exists as to a car, use of a drug dog before the physical search not unreasonable

Once the officer smells marijuana, it violates no law to use a drug dog first rather than just proceeding to search the car. State v. Jones, 2022-Ohio-561, 2022 Ohio App. LEXIS 487 (3d Dist. Feb. 18, 2022). (The less intrusive invasion is worse than the greater intrusion?)

Defendant’s three sentence motion to suppress is denied without a hearing. The government’s response provides the detail to resolve the motion. During defendant’s traffic stop, an extended magazine for a handgun was seen sticking out from under the seat, and that led to a reasonable protective search of the car. United States v. Grigsby, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 33639 (S.D.Tex. Feb. 25, 2022).*

The officers had probable cause to arrest defendant. [A lot. Not even close.] United States v. McCarley-Connin, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 33992 (N.D.Ohio Feb. 22, 2022).*

This entry was posted in Burden of pleading, Dog sniff, Probable cause. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.