CA2: Alleged inconsistencies in dog handler’s testimony didn’t necessarily make him unbelievable

“Any inconsistent testimony Fisher gave as to the dog’s ‘alerts’ and ‘indications’ arose out of a confusion of vocabulary rather than lack of credibility, as made evident by the district court’s request that Fisher clarify and not conflate the terms. We have taken care to distinguish inconsistencies evincing a lack of credibility from those demonstrating ‘confusion, mistake, or faulty memory.’ … The district court drew this distinction and found Fisher credible by pointing to his experience, candor, and expertise. It did not clearly err in doing so.” United States v. Dunnigan, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 3228 (2d Cir. Feb. 12, 2025).*

Defendant was pro se at trial, and he claims it was ill-advised of him to put the search warrant into evidence because it revealed other things he didn’t want into evidence. Thomas v. State, 2025 Alas. App. LEXIS 11 (Feb. 12, 2025).*

The stop was based on the LPN not matching the vehicle with a “stolen hit.” Plain view through the window and furtive movements gave reasonable suspicion to detain longer. State v. Wallace, 2025 La. App. LEXIS 208 (La. App. 5 Cir Feb. 11, 2025).*

This entry was posted in Admissibility of evidence, Burden of proof, Reasonable suspicion. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.