CA9: Drug dog entering vehicle after alert not unreasonable

The drug dog entering defendant’s vehicle after the alert is not unreasonable. An Idaho state CSLI warrant served outside of Idaho was not an issue for federal court. Even if the court agreed that there was a technical violation of the state rule, a technical violation of Federal Rule 41 doesn’t even lead to suppression. United States v. Moore, 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 27933 (9th Cir. Oct. 20, 2023).

The company providing security at the Alaska State Fair, a non-profit corporation and not a state agency, was not a state actor that could be sued under § 1983 for alleged excessive force. Darden v. Crowd Mgmt. Servs., 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 188440 (D. Alaska Oct. 19, 2023).*

“Before initiating the search of Mr. Ramon’s residence, the officers possessed reliable information showing that: (1) Mr. Ramon had failed two drug tests; (2) the DEA had begun to investigate Mr. Ramon’s involvement in a drug distribution conspiracy, linking him to firearms possibly stored at the family business; and (3) he previously possessed paraphernalia and multiple cell phones that might be consistent with drug trafficking.” That was sufficient for a supervised release search. United States v. Ramon, 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 27898 (10th Cir. Oct. 20, 2023).*

This entry was posted in § 1983 / Bivens, Cell site location information, Dog sniff, Probation / Parole search. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.