Defense counsel not subpoenaing the drug dog\u2019s records wasn\u2019t prejudicial where defendant can\u2019t show that the drug dog\u2019s use would be disallowed in the case. \u201cThere is no reason to believe that any additional information would have altered the probable cause determination or resulted in the suppression of evidence.\u201d United States v. Mathews, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 34121 (D. Minn. March 9, 2017).<\/p>\n
The informant hearsay here (analyzed under Aguilar-Spinelli under state law) was sufficient to provide probable cause for defendant\u2019s arrest and search incident. Everything else flowed from that, and inevitable discovery even applies. State v. Smith<\/a>, 2017 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 190 (March 14, 2017).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Defense counsel not subpoenaing the drug dog\u2019s records wasn\u2019t prejudicial where defendant can\u2019t show that the drug dog\u2019s use would be disallowed in the case. \u201cThere is no reason to believe that any additional information would have altered the probable … Continue reading