{"id":49919,"date":"2021-10-14T08:05:19","date_gmt":"2021-10-14T13:05:19","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=49919"},"modified":"2021-10-14T08:10:12","modified_gmt":"2021-10-14T13:10:12","slug":"fl1-drug-dog-sniff-of-motel-door-from-common-hallway-reasonable","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=49919","title":{"rendered":"FL1: Drug dog sniff of motel door from common hallway reasonable"},"content":{"rendered":"\n<p>Drug dog sniff outside motel room door from common hallway invaded no reasonable expectation of privacy. Jardines inapplicable. <a href=\"https:\/\/www.1dca.org\/pre_opinion_content_download\/795032\">Robinson v. State<\/a>, 2021 Fla. App. LEXIS 13874 (Fla. 1st DCA Oct. 13, 2021).<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Defendant&#8217;s actions of pacing and reaching into his pockets created a reasonable suspicion that he could be armed and dangerous. Then the search incident to his arrest for obstructing official business by refusing to allow the pat down by physically preventing the officer from completing it did not violate the Fourth Amendment. <a href=\"https:\/\/www.supremecourt.ohio.gov\/rod\/docs\/pdf\/7\/2021\/2021-Ohio-3636.pdf\">State v. Bunn<\/a>, 2021-Ohio-3636, 2021 Ohio App. LEXIS 3564 (7th Dist. Sept. 28, 2021).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Defense counsel wasn\u2019t shown to be ineffective for not filing a motion to suppress his cell phone search for alleged lack of probable cause. It\u2019s apparent that, had such a motion succeeded, and it\u2019s not apparent it would have been, another search warrant could have been sought and would have been granted. Therefore, inevitable discovery would have applied. <a href=\"https:\/\/efast.gaappeals.us\/download?filingId=158f9005-fbc9-4c08-8810-fbe58df43b6d\">McClure v. State<\/a>, 2021 Ga. App. LEXIS 495 (Oct. 13, 2021).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Drug dog sniff outside motel room door from common hallway invaded no reasonable expectation of privacy. Jardines inapplicable. Robinson v. State, 2021 Fla. App. LEXIS 13874 (Fla. 1st DCA Oct. 13, 2021). Defendant&#8217;s actions of pacing and reaching into his &hellip; <a class=\"more-link\" href=\"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=49919\">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":[19,23,18,35],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-49919","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-curtilage","category-ineffective-assistance","category-reasonable-expectation-of-privacy","category-reasonable-suspicion"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/49919","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=49919"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/49919\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":49921,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/49919\/revisions\/49921"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=49919"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=49919"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=49919"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}