CA8: 4A requires no particular type of drug dog alert

“Collier also questions how Raptor alerted, suggesting that its alert was insufficiently ‘profound.’ … Our ‘probable cause inquiry is always fact specific.’ … Every dog is unique, and a dog that smells illicit drugs is not required to communicate with its handler in any specific way. … ‘Dogs alert in many different manners. One dog may alert in one manner while another dog may alert in another manner.’ … The reliability of a dog’s alert, not its manner, is what matters. See Holleman, 743 F.3d at 1156 (‘Fourth Amendment jurisprudence does not require drug dogs to abide by a specific and consistent code in signaling their sniffing of drugs to their handlers.’ …). Based on the record, we conclude that Raptor’s own unique manner of alert reliably signaled the probable presence of illicit drugs.” United States v. Collier, 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 22709 (8th Cir. Sep. 6, 2024).

Plaintiff alleges enough to show that the arrest might have been illegal, but many of the people sued aren’t proper parties under her allegations. El-Bey v. Wallace, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 160604 (S.D. Ohio Sep. 6, 2024).*

Defendant was stopped for expired tags. The officer found defendant was on probation, so the officer frisked him finding drug pipe. The frisk was reasonable, and that was probable cause. Guam v. Cepeda, 2024 Guam Trial Order LEXIS 153 (Aug. 28, 2024).*

This entry was posted in Arrest or entry on arrest, Dog sniff, Probation / Parole search. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.