{"id":15449,"date":"2015-01-15T08:24:30","date_gmt":"2015-01-15T13:24:30","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=15449"},"modified":"2015-01-15T08:24:30","modified_gmt":"2015-01-15T13:24:30","slug":"ca4-use-of-a-drug-dog-for-a-walk-through-of-a-house-of-one-on-supervised-release-violates-fourth-amendment","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=15449","title":{"rendered":"CA4: Use of a drug dog for a walk-through of a house of one on supervised release violates Fourth Amendment"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>The use of a drug dog for a walk-through of a house of one on supervised release is suppressed, and it was contrary to precedent, so no good faith exception. <a href=\"http:\/\/www.ca4.uscourts.gov\/Opinions\/Published\/134806.P.pdf\">United States v. Hill<\/a>, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 499 (4th Cir. January 13, 2015):<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>The defendants contend that the walk-through and dog sniff violated the Fourth Amendment. Our precedent required the officers in this situation to have a search warrant rather than merely reasonable suspicion to search Barker&#8217;s home. Accordingly, we hold that the walk-through and dog sniff were unlawful searches. We also reject the government&#8217;s contention that the good-faith exception applies with respect to the evidence seized as a result of the dog sniff. Finally, we vacate the judgments and remand for the district court to properly consider whether, pursuant to the &#8220;independent source&#8221; doctrine, the officers in this case &#8220;&#8216;would have sought a warrant&#8217; even if they had not conducted the unlawful search[es].&#8221; United States v. Bullard, 645 F.3d 237, 244 (4th Cir. 2011) (quoting Murray v. United States, 487 U.S. 533, 543, 108 S. Ct. 2529, 101 L. Ed. 2d 472 (1988)).<\/p><\/blockquote>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>The use of a drug dog for a walk-through of a house of one on supervised release is suppressed, and it was contrary to precedent, so no good faith exception. United States v. Hill, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 499 (4th &hellip; <a class=\"more-link\" href=\"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=15449\">Continue reading <span class=\"meta-nav\">&rarr;<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[27,58],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-15449","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-dog-sniff","category-probationparole-search"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/15449","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=15449"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/15449\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":15450,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/15449\/revisions\/15450"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=15449"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=15449"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=15449"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}