\u201cRegardless, Officer Ashenfelter acknowledged that the traffic violation investigation was completed at 11:10. He called for the canine unit at 11:12, and the canine unit arrived at 11:18 a.m. [\u00b6] Thus, the evidence reflects that the officer, after completing his traffic investigation, continued to detain Byrd to wait for the arrival of the canine unit. Officer Ashenfelter testified that Byrd’s license was not suspended and there was no outstanding warrant for her and, therefore, what remained to be investigated was the possibility that there were drugs or guns in her vehicle.\u201d State v. Byrd, 2022-Ohio-4635, 2022 Ohio App. LEXIS 4325 (8th Dist. Dec. 22, 2022).<\/p>\n\n\n\n
It\u2019s obvious to the issuing magistrate from the CI\u2019s information that he had a drug problem, given the number of times he contacted defendant to get drugs. Still, there was probable cause on the totality despite what information defendant contests. United States v. Brown, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 229988 (M.D. Pa. Dec. 21, 2022).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201cThe fact that the officers told Burnett that he was detained and not under arrest is immaterial to whether a seizure of his person occurred under the Fourth Amendment. Once Burnett was handcuffed and told he was not free to leave, Burnett’s detention amounted to a de facto arrest and needed to be supported by probable cause.\u201d United States v. Burnett, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 229454 (E.D. Ky. Nov. 23, 2022).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
\u201cRegardless, Officer Ashenfelter acknowledged that the traffic violation investigation was completed at 11:10. He called for the canine unit at 11:12, and the canine unit arrived at 11:18 a.m. [\u00b6] Thus, the evidence reflects that the officer, after completing his … Continue reading