W.D.Tex.: A dog sniff on federal property was reasonable; MMJ not an issue

“Defendant argues that given the evolving laws regarding marijuana (and other cannabinoid products or derivatives), dog sniffs are increasingly becoming unreliable and therefore violative of the Fourth Amendment because dog sniffs cannot discriminate between contraband and marijuana that is legally possessed. But on the facts presented here—a trained-dog sniff of the outside of a vehicle parked in a parking lot on federal property—Place and Caballes are still good law. There may come a day when Rosco’s sniff no longer reliably detects only contraband but impermissibly detects lawful activity due reasonable expectations of privacy. This is not that day. The ruling of the Magistrate Judge is AFFIRMED.” United States v. Gomez, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 52909 (W.D.Tex. Mar. 24, 2022).*

Michigan v. Hudson held that a knock and announce violation does not invoke suppression. Since then some lower courts have held that Hudson does not apply to arrest warrant execution at the home. The parties are invited to brief this. United States v. Terrazas, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 52883 (W.D.Tex. Mar. 23, 2022).*

This entry was posted in Dog sniff, Knock and announce. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.