CA7: Rodriguez time argument waived by failure to specifically plead it below

“At the outset, we note that Johnson did not challenge the length or validity of the dog sniff in the district court. The record therefore does not contain information crucial to the Rodriguez inquiry, such as whether Deputy Haber acted diligently in filling out the impound log while waiting for backup. To the extent Johnson is now trying to rely on ‘parsing the time line of the stop’ to show that the officers failed diligently to pursue their traffic mission, that argument is forfeited.” United States v. Johnson, 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 3582 (7th Cir. Feb. 15, 2024).

The affidavit for warrant here showed nexus and an ongoing drug operation so the warrant wasn’t stale. United States v. Jefferson, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 26027 (W.D. Tenn. Feb. 14, 2024).*

The issuing magistrate had a substantial basis for concluding that there was probable cause for this warrant. [Review at a suppression hearing really isn’t allowed to be as detailed or intense as defendant suggests.] United States v. Matthews, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 26133 (E.D. Wash. Feb. 14, 2024).*

This entry was posted in Burden of pleading, Dog sniff, Nexus, Probable cause. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.