Federal Circuits Archives

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 [...]

20 02, 2021

K9 Case Law and the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals – Chain of Command

By Clay Smith|2021-02-20T22:08:51+00:00February 20th, 2021|Federal Circuits|0 Comments

The Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) is the highest court in the federal judiciary of the United States of America. It has ultimate (and largely discretionary) appellate jurisdiction over all federal and state court cases that involve a point of federal law. The Court holds the power of judicial review, the ability to invalidate a statute for violating a provision of the Constitution. It is also able to strike down presidential directives for violating either the Constitution or statutory law. However, it may act only within the context of a case in an area of law over which it has jurisdiction. The United States Court of [...]

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 [...]

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 [...]

12 03, 2019

CA11 – Detention was Reasonable for Dog because Reasonable Suspicion Existed

By Clay Smith|2021-02-10T15:21:17+00:00March 12th, 2019|CA11, Federal Circuits, Narcotics Detection, Vehicle Sniffs|0 Comments

United States v. Rodriguez, 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 7236 (11th Cir. Mar. 12, 2019) Here, Rodriguez did not undergo an unreasonable seizure. For starters, law enforcement officers had a reasonable suspicion that he was involved in criminal activity. See Lewis, 674 F.3d at 1303. Evidence presented at the suppression hearing revealed that officers knew that: (1) Rodriguez’s co-conspirator, Julio Cesar Rifat, was planning a seven-kilogram cocaine transaction; (2) Rifat typically worked with others when he did his drug transactions; (3) Rifat met with Rodriguez and Garcia at a residence the morning of the planned transaction; (4) Rifat left alone from [...]

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