W.D.Wash.: Dog sniff in apt building breezeway violated no REP, and it was moot anyway

On the totality, there was probable cause for cell phone search warrants. One can attempt to explain away the pieces, but the totality shows it. A dog sniff in the breezeway of an apartment complex violated no reasonable expectation of privacy. “ More importantly, it would be improper for this Court to apply the exclusionary rule given that the investigators never relied upon the results of that warrantless K9 sniff in any search warrant affidavit.” United States v. Miller, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 156497 (W.D. Wash. Aug. 30, 2022).

Petitioner’s 2255 was barred by Stone and the fact he had no standing whatsoever by disavowing the contents of the place searched. United States v. Crawford, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 155513 (D. Mont. Aug. 26, 2022).*

An anonymous call here justified at least defendant’s brief detention for allegedly seeking to break into an apartment. Reliance on anonymous callers are not precluded under Terry. It was thus not an unreasonable seizure before probable cause finally developed. United States v. Astorga, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 156088 (D.N.M. Aug. 29, 2022).*

The record supported plaintiff’s excessive force claim for actions occurring after a flashbang exploded with no qualified immunity. Robinson v. Sauls, 2022 U.S. App. LEXIS 24449 (11th Cir. Aug. 30, 2022).*

This entry was posted in Dog sniff, Excessive force, Issue preclusion, Reasonable expectation of privacy, Stop and frisk. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.