Officers did a dog sniff at defendant\u2019s door after Jardines and then the car in the driveway. The car in the driveway is not on the curtilage, but the court suppresses because the sniff of the car was essentially an afterthought product of the sniff of the house. Also, the officer’s reports and his testimony aren\u2019t consistent with each other. United States v. Maberry, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 80529 (S.D.Miss. June 21, 2016).<\/p>\n
Defendant\u2019s pro se habeas claim is denied. Officers entered his apartment with the key provided by his mother to look for him in a shooting. He wasn\u2019t there. They left and got a search warrant. Nothing about this was unreasonable, so no IAC. Grigsby v. State<\/a>, 2016 Nev. LEXIS 553 (June 17, 2016).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Officers did a dog sniff at defendant\u2019s door after Jardines and then the car in the driveway. The car in the driveway is not on the curtilage, but the court suppresses because the sniff of the car was essentially an … Continue reading