United States v. Malachi Patton Handley N.D. Iowa, Cedar Rapids Division
Ok guys and gals, this one is a bit confusing but some key take-a-ways for Iowa.
The entry of the nose was ruled a search without probable cause. However, the evidence was not suppressed here.
“The Court agrees with Judge Roberts that the police officers in this case did not violate defendant’s Fourth Amendment rights deliberately, recklessly, or with gross negligence. Also, although called into question by the Eighth Circuit, Lyons remains good law, and a reasonable officer could rely on Lyons’ holding: “Absent police misconduct, the instinctive actions of a trained canine do not violate the Fourth Amendment.” Lyons 486 F.3d at 373; see Davis, 564 U.S. at 241 (“Evidence obtained during a search conducted in reasonable reliance on binding precedent is not subject to the exclusionary rule.”).”
They focused a lot on this case on whether the officer had trained the dog to enter windows, in which case would make the officers actions here culpable.
Also there was a lot of discussion on the behavior before a “final alert” and whether the PC existed before the dogs nose entered in the window. The court ruled that the behavior before the final alert was not an alert in this case, the officer had never called the behavior as an alert without the final indication.
Defense used an “expert” witness and based on what is listed from him in the decision there are some pretty weak arguments so I am unsure of how much weight the court gave to his opinions. I am going to list these things here as it is a good practice to know what arguments may be being made in an attempt to confuse the courts.
Experts testimony included the following opinions:
1. Mr. Potter was critical of Lara’s participation in training. While the CRPD requires 16 hours of training per month, Lara was not actively engaged in training to that extent.
2. He believed Officer Smith should have approached the vehicle from a different direction given the prevailing winds on the day Defendant’s vehicle was searched.
3. Even though Lara received a command to commence a search, she would still be smelling any odors that may be present and the behaviors Officer Smith attributes to her reaction to narcotics, may, in fact, be a reaction to other odors.
4. Mr. Potter is concerned that “handler bias” could influence Lara and affect her behavior; however, he saw nothing in the videos that showed handler bias in this case.
5. Mr. Potter is concerned that the residual odor of narcotics from law enforcements interaction at a prior investigation could have contaminated the site and lead to a false positive.
6. Mr. Potter counted only one “head snap” when Lara went from the front bumper back to the tire, not two as testified by Officer Smith.
7. Mr. Potter’s principal opinion at issue, however, concerns the significance of behavioral changes exhibited by a dog before a final indication. Mr. Potter opined that a handler’s interpretation of these pre-indication behavior changes is “purely subjective,” as opposed to final indication, such as a sit, which can be objectively observed by anyone. (Id. at 102.) Mr. Potter had not seen any indication in the training records of Officer Smith ever evaluating Lara’s behavior short of a final indication to determine if it was sufficient for probable cause.
