UT: IAC shown for not challenging dog alert

The initial dog alert here did not provide probable cause for search of defendant’s vehicle. Thus, defense counsel was ineffective for not pursuing a Fourth Amendment challenge. “In summary, based on the record before us, a motion to suppress the evidence discovered in the vehicle appears meritorious—that is, it would have had a reasonable likelihood of success. The record contains no indication that the officers had probable cause at the outset or during Timber’s first entry into the car and, as a result, for the search following Timber’s re-entry to be permissible, Handler Officer must not have orchestrated it and Timber’s re-entry into the car must have been purely instinctual. In this instance, that was clearly not the case: Timber’s second entry into the vehicle was orchestrated by Handler Officer, who encouraged Timber to re-enter the car, whereupon Handler Officer shut the driver’s side door to keep Timber in the car to search for drugs.” State v. Beames, 2022 UT App 61, 2022 Utah App. LEXIS 64 (May 12, 2022).

Merely occupying a hotel room doesn’t give one standing to challenge its search. In the Second Circuit, an affidavit showing one’s reasonable expectation of privacy has to be presented with the motion to suppress. United States v. Wiley, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 89004 (D.Conn. May 18, 2022).*

This entry was posted in Burden of pleading, Dog sniff, Ineffective assistance, Motion to suppress, Standing. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.