{"id":61137,"date":"2025-05-29T09:41:12","date_gmt":"2025-05-29T14:41:12","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=61137"},"modified":"2025-05-29T09:41:12","modified_gmt":"2025-05-29T14:41:12","slug":"oh1-drug-dogs-instinctive-jump-into-car-window-wasnt-unreasonable","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=61137","title":{"rendered":"OH1: Drug dog&#8217;s instinctive jump into car window wasn&#8217;t unreasonable"},"content":{"rendered":"\n<p>The drug dog\u2019s instinctive jump into the window of defendant\u2019s car wasn\u2019t initiated by the handler, so it wasn\u2019t unreasonable. <a href=\"https:\/\/www.supremecourt.ohio.gov\/rod\/docs\/pdf\/1\/2025\/2025-Ohio-1904.pdf\">State v. Barton<\/a>, 2025-Ohio-1904 (1st Dist. May 28, 2025) (2-1).<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>\u201cAs already discussed, Parr had reason to believe Defendant was smuggling drugs into Wichita not on the basis of an inarticulable hunch, but because of the following observations: (1) the owner of the truck was not present, (2) Defendant recently sold the truck to his youngest brother, (3) Defendant needlessly volunteered information, (4) his responses were at times nonsensical and contradictory, and (5) because he had recently stopped a nearly identical truck with a secret compartment for smuggling drugs. Therefore, the court concludes that Parr lawfully extended the traffic stop when he initiated an investigation into whether Defendant was smuggling drugs to Wichita.\u201d United States v. Barrios, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 100921 (D. Kan. May 28, 2025).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Defendant\u2019s appellate ineffective assistance claim fails. It\u2019s a rehash of the argument already rejected with a few new inconsequential details and wouldn\u2019t change the result. State v. Haslam, 2025-Ohio-1910 (7th Dist. May 16, 2025).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>The drug dog\u2019s instinctive jump into the window of defendant\u2019s car wasn\u2019t initiated by the handler, so it wasn\u2019t unreasonable. State v. Barton, 2025-Ohio-1904 (1st Dist. May 28, 2025) (2-1). \u201cAs already discussed, Parr had reason to believe Defendant was &hellip; <a class=\"more-link\" href=\"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=61137\">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":[27,23,35],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-61137","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-dog-sniff","category-ineffective-assistance","category-reasonable-suspicion"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/61137","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=61137"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/61137\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":61138,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/61137\/revisions\/61138"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=61137"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=61137"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=61137"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}