Defendant consented to a search that led the officer to determine that a dog sniff was required. He explained it to the defendant, and defendant\u2019s acquiescence expanded the consent. The officer did not have to remove a duffle bag from the car before having the drug dog smell it. United States v. Hill, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 79250 (N.D. Ga. June 7, 2012).*<\/p>\n
Plaintiff sufficiently pled trespass by border patrol officers coming on his property and assault and battery for nearly driving into him because he attempted to take their picture with his cell phone camera. Moher v. United States, 875 F. Supp. 2d 739 (W.D. Mich. 2012).*<\/p>\n
Defendant was in custody, but the state can meet his heavy burden of showing consent without having Mirandized the defendant. People v. McCray<\/a>, 2012 NY Slip Op 4579, 96 A.D.3d 1480, 946 N.Y.S.2d 744 (4th Dept. 2012).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" b2evALnk.b2WPAutP Continue reading