E.D.Ky.: When court can’t tell the dog alerted, motion to suppress granted

The court reviewing the dashcam video repeatedly cannot tell that the dog alerts at all. Motion to suppress granted. United States v. Edmonds, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 74570 (E.D. Ky. Apr. 24, 2024). Update: techdirt: Court To Cops: If We Can’t See The Drug Dog Do The Thing, We’re Gonna Be Suppressing Some Evidence by Tim Cushing

For a review of a USMJ’s credibility determinations after a hearing on a motion to suppress, the USDJ would have to conduct a new hearing. Reviewing the record, however, there’s no need for that, and the credibility determinations will not be second guessed. United States v. Diaz-Rivera, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 74215 (D.P.R. Apr. 19, 2024).*

There was probable cause in this child pornography case. “Even were this Court to conclude that the finding of the magistrate judge of probable cause was deficient, the search easily falls within the parameters of the ‘good faith’ exception to the exclusionary rule.” United States v. Daigle, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 74542 (D. Mass. Apr. 24, 2024).*

This entry was posted in Burden of proof, Dog sniff, Good faith exception. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.