FL5: Dog alert on MJ before case law said it wasn’t PC anymore was in good faith

Newer cases hold that a drug dog can’t differentiate between legal and illegal marijuana, so a dog alert doesn’t provide probable cause. Where the dog sniff occurred before that holding, however, it was reasonable under the good faith exception. Ford v. State, 2025 Fla. App. LEXIS 187 (Fla. 5th DCA Jan. 7, 2025).

There was at least a good faith basis to bring a criminal case when it was first initiated, and the fact they didn’t continue to investigate doesn’t undermine that initial probable cause. Bickham v. Czebiniak, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2496 (N.D.N.Y. Jan. 7, 2025).*

A 2255 petition that only alleges that defense counsel failed to file a motion to suppress to challenge illegally seized evidence didn’t state a claim. What evidence? Davis v. United States, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3668 (N.D. Miss. Jan. 8, 2025).*

Summary judgment was properly granted on qualified immunity grounds because the law was not clearly established in 2015 that an officer violates the Fourth Amendment by entering the curtilage of a home through an unlocked gate and reaching out to arrest someone standing in plain view near the street. Sauceda v. Lopez, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 434 (5th Cir. Jan. 8, 2025).*

This entry was posted in Arrest or entry on arrest, Dog sniff, Good faith exception, Ineffective assistance, Probable cause. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.