Positive hit from drug dog on car but no drugs found justified strip search at jail

The defendant was arrested for drug sales, and a drug dog positively alerted on his car, but no drugs were found. A strip search was justified at the jail. As to the merits of the original arrest, “‘Sixth Circuit precedent clearly establishes that the affiant need only specify that the confidential informant has given accurate information in the past to qualify as reliable.’ United States v. Greene, 250 F.3d 471, 480 (6th Cir.2001).” Here, there were two prior buys from the defendant at the place previously specified, so that takes care of it. United States v. Warfield, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 80334 (W.D. Ky. November 2, 2006).

Without findings of fact, unless these are it, the S.D. Miss. sustains a third-party consent. United States v. Perez-Vera, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 80342 (S.D. Miss. October 31, 2006):

The Court, having considered the testimony of the witnesses and arguments of counsel, credits the testimony of the government’s witnesses, and finds by the requisite standard of proof the following: (1) that the defendant’s consent to search was not sought by the state officers, nor (2) was he sequestered in such a way that his refusal to consent could not be heard. The Court further finds that (3) the wife, who was shown by proof to be the lease-holder of the residence, had the apparent authority to consent, and (4) that she did consent to the search of the residence wherein she had standing to consent or refuse. Such consent as was obtained of her is consonant with the Court’s holdings in United States v. Matlock, 415 U.S. 164 (1974), and in Illinois v. Rodriguez, 497 U.S. 177 (1990), and does not offend the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States. Matlock, supra, at 170-171.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.