OH11: Dragging out the stop a few minutes to allow drug dog to arrive made it unreasonable

In a state where the appellate courts are overly solicitous of police calling for drug dog sniffs in traffic stops, this court finds the stop prolonged for the drug dog to get there without reasonable suspicion. Neyhard v. State, 2022-Ohio-1098, 2022 Ohio App. LEXIS 987 (11th Dist. Mar. 31, 2022).

Omission of a claimed fact that defendant knew the age of the person in the alleged child pornography video isn’t relevant to probable cause. There was probable cause she was underage, and that’s what matters. (The question is whether the search is valid, not whether he is guilty of the offense.) United States v. Arroyo-Angelino, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 59152 (D.Md. Mar. 29, 2022).*

The district court having credited the officer’s testimony that defendant’s windows were overtinted, the appellate court was bound to follow that there was justification for the stop. United States v. Beauchamp, 2022 U.S. App. LEXIS 8445 (4th Cir. Mar. 30, 2022).*

This entry was posted in Probable cause, Reasonable suspicion, Standards of review. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.