FL5: State failed to show justification for delay for dog sniff

This being a warrantless search during a traffic stop with a drug gog, the state bore the burden of proof on justification for detention for the dog sniff, and it failed to show that the stop was lawfully continued. Reversed. Hudson v. State, 2026 Fla. App. LEXIS 5681 (Fla. 5th DCA July 24, 2026).

2255 petitioner doesn’t show that defense counsel was ineffective for (1) not filing a motion to suppress or (2) that it would even prevail. Therefore, no prejudice. United States v. McIntosh, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 163234 (D. Minn. July 23, 2026).*

There was probable cause for the search warrant for defendant’s cell phone and where it was. Two calls were made from it after he’d been arrested, and the officers believed they had the location. Defendant’s Franks challenge fails for failing to show materiality. United States v. Livigni, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 162837 (S.D.N.Y. July 22, 2026).*

This entry was posted in Burden of pleading, Cell phones, Dog sniff, Ineffective assistance, Probable cause. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.