N.D.Iowa: There was PC before the dog stuck his nose through the window

The dog sticking his nose through the window was a search, but the officers already had probable cause by then. Therefore, no exclusionary. United States v. Newberry, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 195271 (N.D. Iowa Oct. 28, 2024).

On the government’s motion in limine, where defendant doesn’t challenge the search, defendant is precluded from arguing that the investigation and search warrant wasn’t complete. United States v. Montanez, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 194605 (E.D.N.Y. Oct. 24, 2024).* [I’d say that’s wrong because it tends to show that the police just assumed guilt.]

2255 petitioner pleads that defense counsel was ineffective for not arguing a lack of probable cause for the warrant, but doesn’t mention the good faith exception. He couldn’t win on probable cause or the good faith exception. United States v. Harp, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 194730 (W.D. La. Oct. 24, 2024).*

Because a minor 16 or over can be cited for a seatbelt violation, the officer could ask for defendant’s ID. Commonwealth v. Mitchell, 2024 Mass. App. LEXIS 146 (Oct. 28, 2024).*

This entry was posted in Admissibility of evidence, Dog sniff, Ineffective assistance. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.