A search warrant application does not have to support the reliability of a drug dog used to establish the probable cause under Harris. The remedy is a motion to suppress. \u201cAs this Court reads it, Harris is a reiteration of Gates. Judges and law enforcement authorities need some reason to think a drug dog is reliable, see Harris, 568 U.S. at 247, but if the defendant thinks otherwise, a motion to suppress puts the burden on the government to prove the K-9 unit contributed competent information that, taken together with all other relevant facts, established probable cause for a search. United States v. Bishop, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 106354 (D. Mont. June 17, 2020).<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Defendant\u2019s Franks challenge fails. He \u201chas failed to make a substantial preliminary showing on at least two fronts. First, nothing in his motion or affidavits speaks to whether the alleged omissions were deliberate or reckless. Nault cannot receive a Franks hearing simply alleging factual inaccuracies or omissions. \u2026 [\u00b6] Nault’s motion also fails because he has not made a significant preliminary showing that the drug dog sniff was material to the probable cause determination.\u201d United States v. Nault, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 106297 (D. Mont. June 17, 2020).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
A search warrant application does not have to support the reliability of a drug dog used to establish the probable cause under Harris. The remedy is a motion to suppress. \u201cAs this Court reads it, Harris is a reiteration of … Continue reading