CA4: Dog sniff at apt. door here violated no REP

A dog sniff at defendant’s apartment door in a multi-unit complex didn’t violate any reasonable expectation of privacy. (Two unpublished cases in this circuit said that; this one’s published.) United States v. Johnson, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 19648 (4th Cir. Aug. 5, 2025).

There was probable cause for plaintiff’s arrest and then the search incident of his backpack. Talley v. Jackson State Univ., 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 19727 (5th Cir. Aug. 5, 2025).*

“While Plaintiff argues that Sergeant Omey’s actions violated City law and policy, the ‘reasonableness’ standard for searches does not take account of local laws. See Virginia v. Moore, 553 U.S. 164, 178, 128 S. Ct. 1598, 170 L. Ed. 2d 559 (2008) (‘[I]t is not the province of the Fourth Amendment to enforce state law.’) Accordingly, Plaintiff has not proffered enough facts to indicate beyond a speculative level that the seizure violated Plaintiff’s rights.” Pifferini v. City of Eureka, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 149758 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 4, 2025).*

This entry was posted in Dog sniff, Reasonable expectation of privacy, Reasonableness, Search incident. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.