Clay Smith, Author at Drugbeat

19 01, 2021

Ohio Supreme Court- Delay in finding car insurance enabled a reasonable dog sniff

By Clay Smith|2021-02-08T20:03:28+00:00January 19th, 2021|Narcotics Detection, Ohio, State Court, Vehicle Sniffs|0 Comments

021-Ohio-119, 2021 Ohio App. LEXIS 108 (5th Dist. Jan. 19, 2021) The trial court found, and we agree, that Trooper Browne did not unreasonably prolong the stop. There was testimony that he was still in the process of conducting the traffic stop when he walked his K9 around appellant’s vehicle. Appellant was still in the process of looking for proof of insurance. Approximately thirteen minutes had passed between the stop and the K9 sniff and appellant was still attempting to locate current proof of insurance. As noted by the trial court, Trooper Browne testified that he was going to give [...]

7 12, 2020

CA9 – Qualified Immunity Denied – Clearly established precedent person not endangering officers or attempting to flee violated unreasonable seizure

By Clay Smith|2021-02-10T16:33:31+00:00December 7th, 2020|CA9, Federal Circuits, Use of Force|0 Comments

Penaloza v. City of Rialto, 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 38050 (9th Cir. Dec. 7, 2020) We affirm the denial of qualified immunity as to Officer Jarrod Zirkle (“Zirkle”), Boda’s handler, for the release of Boda onto Goode. Goode was the passenger in a car Zirkle pulled over for an expired registration. The driver initially tried to evade police—leading Zirkle in a chase—but once the car stopped, Goode exited the car and knelt on the ground. Zirkle approached the passenger side of the car with Boda, planning to send Boda into the car to bite the driver, Erick Aguirre. Zirkle feared [...]

29 10, 2020

Kentucky Supreme Court – Unreasonable Delay for Drug Dog

By Clay Smith|2021-02-08T21:28:15+00:00October 29th, 2020|State Court, Vehicle Sniffs|0 Comments

Commonwealth v. Mitchell, 2020 Ky. LEXIS 394 (Oct. 29, 2020) AFFIRMING IN PART, REVERSING IN PART,AND REMANDING We outlined in Davis v. Commonwealth our test for when officers impermissibly extend stops. In Davis we stated, “[t]here is no ‘de minimis exception’ to the rule that a traffic stop cannot be prolonged for reasons unrelated to the purpose of the stop.” A stop is unreasonably extended when the “tasks tied to the traffic infraction are –or reasonably should have been –completed...” In Smith v. Commonwealth, a canine officer, at the request of police detectives who had been surveilling Smith, initiated a [...]

4 09, 2020

CA6 – Dog Biting Handcuffed, Nonresisting Suspect is Excessive Force

By Clay Smith|2021-02-09T16:02:03+00:00September 4th, 2020|CA6, Federal Circuits, Use of Force|0 Comments

Hammond v. County of Oakland, 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 28285 (9th Cir. Sept. 4, 2020) A police dog bit plaintiff while he was handcuffed and on the ground. That’s excessive force if a jury believes it was gratuitous. Qualified immunity denied. Hammond v. County of Oakland, 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 28285 (9th Cir. Sept. 4, 2020): The next segment came when Cadotte ordered Odin to bite Hammond after the deputies had handcuffed him. We have held that police violate the Fourth Amendment when they order a dog to bite a suspect who posed no threat to the officers’ safety and [...]

29 05, 2020

CA6 – Duration of K9 Bite as Reasonable Force

By Clay Smith|2021-02-09T16:02:32+00:00May 29th, 2020|CA6, Federal Circuits, Use of Force|0 Comments

Zuress v. City of Newark, 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 17134 (6th Cir. May 29, 2020): The second alleged unreasonable use of force was the delay in stopping the dog bite after plaintiff had been subdued. We have acknowledged that it is possible for “a delay in calling off [a police] dog . . . [to] rise to the level of an unreasonable seizure.” Greco v. Livingston Cty., 774 F.3d 1061, 1064 (6th Cir. 2014). But the facts here do not support a Fourth Amendment violation. Once defendant and the dog made physical contact with plaintiff, there were about five seconds [...]

29 05, 2020

Alabama Court of Appeals – Dog Sniff at Apartment Door Unreasonable and Violation of Jardines

By Clay Smith|2021-02-08T22:35:01+00:00May 29th, 2020|Alabama, Narcotics Detection, Residence, State Court|0 Comments

Earl v. State, 2020 Ala. Crim. App. LEXIS 44 (May 29, 2020) “We consider whether the use of a drug-sniffing dog to sniff the door seams of the apartment was, under the reasoning of Jardines, an illegal search in violation of Earl’s Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable searches. We hold that it was, and that the remaining facts in the affidavit did not show probable cause to issue a search warrant for the apartment. We reverse and remand.” Earl v. State, 2020 Ala. Crim. App. LEXIS 44 (May 29, 2020): We agree with the reasoning of the [...]

29 05, 2020

Alabama Court of Civil Appeals – $52,560 – Dog Alert without Presence of Drugs Fails to Support Asset Forfeiture

By Clay Smith|2021-02-10T16:34:56+00:00May 29th, 2020|Alabama, Narcotics Detection, State Court, Vehicle Sniffs|0 Comments

Martinez-Camacho v. State, 2019 Ala. Civ. App. LEXIS 102 (Aug. 2, 2019) Based on the precedents described above, we are not persuaded by the State's argument based on Agee, Wherry,$10,000, and Harris, all of which are distinguishable in pertinent respects regarding the relationship between the property and purported drug transactions at issue. The facts in the present case reflect that a drug-detection dog alerted to an unknown narcotic of unknown legality and of unknown quantity, at an unknown specific location (truck or money), in a vehicle where a few stacks of possibly illegally acquired, bound cash were hidden. The only [...]

8 05, 2020

Ohio Court of Appeals 6th District – Intentionally Stalling Traffic Stop for Dog was Unreasonable

By Clay Smith|2021-02-10T15:37:20+00:00May 8th, 2020|Narcotics Detection, Ohio, State Court, Vehicle Sniffs|0 Comments

State v. Werder, 2020-Ohio-2865, 2020 Ohio App. LEXIS 1835 (6th Dist. May 8, 2020) There was no reasonable suspicion to continue the stop in this case. The officer called for backup and a dog, and the first officer there told him to stall for the dog. Nothing was done for eight minutes to pursue the basis of the traffic stop. The state did not argue that reasonable, articulable suspicion of criminal activity arose during the traffic stop to justify further detaining Werder; it made no closing argument and filed no brief in opposition to Werder’s motion to suppress, despite the [...]

29 04, 2020

Arkansas Court of Appeals – Drug Dog Alerted While Warning Being Written Did Not Extent Stop

By Clay Smith|2021-02-10T15:42:07+00:00April 29th, 2020|Arkansas, Narcotics Detection, State Court, Vehicle Sniffs|0 Comments

Mickens v. State, 2020 Ark. App. 280, 2020 Ark. App. LEXIS 307 (Apr. 29, 2020) Here, Officer Collins testified that he was still in the process of writing appellant’s warning ticket when Detective Robertson arrived with Zeke. Therefore, the legitimate purpose of the stop had not ended when Zeke alerted on appellant’s vehicle. Once Zeke alerted on the vehicle, there was no additional suspicion needed for the vehicle to be searched.[15] And to the extent that appellant attempts to argue that there was no reasonable suspicion to allow the dog to sniff the exterior of the car, this argument also [...]

19 12, 2019

Federal Western District of Missouri – FedEx Package was not Seized by Moving for a Dog Sniff

By Clay Smith|2021-02-10T15:55:32+00:00December 19th, 2019|Federal Districts, Missouri, Narcotics Detection|0 Comments

United States v. Green, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 218043 (W.D. Mo. Dec. 19, 2019) The Court agrees with Judge Whitworth's analysis in all respects. Regarding the first issue, the police did not "seize" the package until after the dog alerted to the presence of drugs. It was not a seizure to remove the package from the FedEx conveyor belt, carry it 200 feet to the back of the warehouse, and subject it to a dog sniff. This was in accordance with FedEx's established procedures and requirement that dogs not be around the conveyor belt. As a result, FedEx did not lose [...]

About Clay Smith

Categories

Tags