TX14: The dog sniff violated the 4A because the dog’s nose went in the car window

The dog sniff violated the Fourth Amendment because the dog’s nose went in the car window and sniffed the interior. State v. Organ, 2024 Tex. App. LEXIS 6279 (Tex. App. – Houston (14th Dist.) Aug. 27, 2024).

“We conclude that the Supreme Court of Arkansas would adopt this interpretation of the careless driving statute if presented the issue. Therefore, based on Baker and the undisputed fact that Lockhart drove on the yellow centerline before Officer Ware stopped him, we conclude that Officer Ware had probable cause or at least an objectively reasonable basis to believe that Lockhart had violated the careless driving statute. At most, Officer Ware made an objectively reasonable mistake of law in applying the careless driving statute. His initial stop was constitutionally valid under the Fourth Amendment.” Lockhart v. Siloam Springs, 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 21492 (8th Cir. Aug. 26, 2024).*

There was probable cause for the first search warrant for defendant’s property, so the second warrant is not fruit of the poisonous tree. Even so, the good faith exception applies here. United States v. Valle, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 152367 (D. Minn. June 28, 2024),* adopted, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 147344 (D. Minn. Aug. 19, 2024).*

This entry was posted in Dog sniff, Probable cause, Reasonable suspicion. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.