\u201cAny inconsistent testimony Fisher gave as to the dog’s \u2018alerts\u2019 and \u2018indications\u2019 arose out of a confusion of vocabulary rather than lack of credibility, as made evident by the district court’s request that Fisher clarify and not conflate the terms. We have taken care to distinguish inconsistencies evincing a lack of credibility from those demonstrating \u2018confusion, mistake, or faulty memory.\u2019 \u2026 The district court drew this distinction and found Fisher credible by pointing to his experience, candor, and expertise. It did not clearly err in doing so.\u201d United States v. Dunnigan, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 3228 (2d Cir. Feb. 12, 2025).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Defendant was pro se at trial, and he claims it was ill-advised of him to put the search warrant into evidence because it revealed other things he didn\u2019t want into evidence. Thomas v. State, 2025 Alas. App. LEXIS 11 (Feb. 12, 2025).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The stop was based on the LPN not matching the vehicle with a \u201cstolen hit.\u201d Plain view through the window and furtive movements gave reasonable suspicion to detain longer. State v. Wallace, 2025 La. App. LEXIS 208 (La. App. 5 Cir Feb. 11, 2025).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
\u201cAny inconsistent testimony Fisher gave as to the dog’s \u2018alerts\u2019 and \u2018indications\u2019 arose out of a confusion of vocabulary rather than lack of credibility, as made evident by the district court’s request that Fisher clarify and not conflate the terms. … Continue reading