FAQ Archives - Drugbeat

15 03, 2021

CA10 – United States v. Goldberg – Positive Alert without Final Trained Response is Sufficient

By Clay Smith|2021-04-01T15:57:57+00:00March 15th, 2021|CA10, Federal Circuits, Vehicle Sniffs|0 Comments

United States v. Goldberg 2021 U.S. App. LEXIS 7431 (10th Cir. Mar. 15, 2021) U.S. Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit To the extent that Goldberg brings a legal challenge, this court has held that an alert, as opposed to a final indication, is sufficient to establish probable cause. See Moore, 795 F.3d at 1232 (“We have held that an alert, or a change in a dog’s behavior in reaction to the odor of drugs, is sufficient to establish probable cause to search a vehicle, and that a final indication is not necessary.”); Parada, 577 F.3d at 1282 This [...]

5 02, 2021

Arkansas – Can I search a passenger subsequent to a K9 Alert (or other PC)?

By Clay Smith|2021-02-05T20:40:14+00:00February 5th, 2021|Arkansas, State Court, Vehicle Sniffs|0 Comments

Arkansas Rules of Criminal Procedure 14.1 - Vehicular Searches (a) An officer who has reasonable cause to believe that a moving or readily movable vehicle is or contains things subject to seizure may, without a search warrant, stop, detain, and search the vehicle and may seize things subject to seizure discovered in the course of the search where the vehicle is: (i) on a public way or waters or other area open to the public; (ii) in a private area unlawfully entered by the vehicle; or (iii) in a private area lawfully entered by the vehicle, provided that exigent circumstances [...]

16 05, 2013

Arkansas Supreme Court – Positive Alert without Final Trained Response Recognized

By Clay Smith|2021-02-08T15:55:11+00:00May 16th, 2013|Arkansas, Narcotics Detection, State Court, Vehicle Sniffs|0 Comments

Jackson v. State, 2013 Ark. 201, 427 S.W.3d 607, 615 (2013) Corporal Behnke testified that when dealing with K-9 Major there can be an alert, a profound alert, or an indication. He explained that an alert is a change in behavior that the handler knows and can recognize upon his own canine. He also testified that a profound alert is something that any human being, by sitting there and watching him, can understand that the dog has had a significant change in behavior. Finally, an indication, he explained, will either be a sit, stand, or lay. In this instance, Corporal [...]

19 02, 2013

S.C.O.T.U.S. – K9 Reliability – Florida v Harris

By Clay Smith|2021-02-09T13:57:58+00:00February 19th, 2013|Narcotics Detection, SCOTUS, Vehicle Sniffs|0 Comments

Florida v. Harris - 568 U.S. 237, 133 S. Ct. 1050 (2013) A police officer has probable cause to conduct a search when “the facts available to [him] would ‘warrant a [per-son] of reasonable caution in the belief ’” that contraband or evidence of a crime is present... “Finely tuned standards such as proof beyond a reasonable doubt or by a preponderance of the evidence . . . have no place in the [probable-cause] decision.” Gates, 462 U. S., at 235. All we have required is the kind of “fair probability” on which “reasonable and prudent [people,] not legal technicians, [...]

25 04, 2009

CA10 – United States v Parada – Positive Alert without Final Trained Response Recognized

By Clay Smith|2021-02-09T16:03:05+00:00April 25th, 2009|CA10, Federal Circuits, Vehicle Sniffs|0 Comments

United States v Parada (577 F. 3d 1275 (2009) U.S. Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit) Holding that "officers had probable cause to search the entire vehicle based on the dog's alert to the front driver's side door" One of our early dog sniff cases assumed without deciding that the police had only reasonable suspicion until the dog "keyed," i.e., indicated, the exact location of the drugs whereupon officers had probable cause to search. United States v. Stone, 866 F.2d 359, 364 (10th Cir. 1984). The precise issue raised by Mr. Parada was not before the court in Stone, however, and our later cases have not [...]

Categories

Tags