7 02, 2025

OH5: K9 Sniff did not violate Rodriguez and no violation for handler touching vehicle to redirect dog

By |2025-02-07T15:34:45+00:00February 7th, 2025|Narcotics Detection, Ohio, State Court, Vehicle Sniffs|0 Comments

K9 Case Law in Ohio: State v. Bond and Its Impact on K9 Searches State v Bond Officer touching vehicle during k9 sniff to redirect dogs sniffing was not a violation.  The sniff did not extend the stop in violation of Rodriguez. Introduction K9 searches and seizures remain a highly litigated issue in criminal law, especially concerning vehicle searches. The recent Ohio Court of Appeals decision in State v. Bond, 2025-Ohio-360, offers important insights into how courts analyze K9-related Fourth Amendment challenges. This case reinforces established precedents and clarifies key issues, including the duration of a traffic stop, the reliability [...]

17 12, 2024

NC: K9 Alert on vehicle did not justify search of person

By |2025-01-28T19:26:52+00:00December 17th, 2024|Narcotics Detection, North Carolina, Person, State Court|0 Comments

State v. Stollings, 2024 N.C. App. LEXIS 1006 (Dec. 17, 2024). "A drug dog alert on defendant’s car isn’t reasonable suspicion to frisk his person." The Case of State v. Stollings: A Critical Analysis of K-9 Use in Evidence Suppression The case of State v. Stollings serves as a pivotal moment in the evolving landscape of K9 case law, particularly in the realm of search and seizure during traffic stops. This case not only highlights the importance of adhering to constitutional standards but also underscores the necessity of clear, credible evidence when employing K9 units. Below, we dissect the key [...]

6 09, 2024

CA8: Alert style not specified by court to be upheld

By |2025-01-28T19:23:32+00:00September 6th, 2024|CA8, Federal Circuits, Federal Districts, Narcotics Detection, Vehicle Sniffs|0 Comments

United States v. Collier, 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 22709 (8th Cir. Sep. 6, 2024). "Every dog is unique, and a dog that smells illicit drugs is not required to communicate with its handler in any specific way. … ‘Dogs alert in many different manners. One dog may alert in one manner while another dog may alert in another manner.’ … The reliability of a dog’s alert, not its manner, is what matters. See Holleman, 743 F.3d at 1156 (‘Fourth Amendment jurisprudence does not require drug dogs to abide by a specific and consistent code in signaling their sniffing of drugs [...]

27 08, 2024

TX14: Dog nose crossed the threshold – unreasonable

By |2025-01-29T00:28:19+00:00August 27th, 2024|Narcotics Detection, State Court, Texas, Vehicle Sniffs|0 Comments

State v. Organ, 2024 Tex. App. LEXIS 6279 (Tex. App. – Houston (14th Dist.) Aug. 27, 2024).   Case Analysis: State of Texas v. Courtney James-Varnell Organ Introduction The case of State of Texas v. Courtney James-Varnell Organ serves as a pivotal moment in the ongoing interpretation of Fourth Amendment protections, particularly regarding the role of K9 units in vehicle searches. This case addresses a critical question: Does the intrusion of a narcotics dog into a vehicle’s interior constitute an unconstitutional search? The decision by the Fourteenth Court of Appeals, Texas, clarifies the boundaries of lawful searches and highlights the [...]

24 04, 2024

KY: Testimony not supported by video – motion to suppress granted

By |2024-07-29T18:18:24+00:00April 24th, 2024|Kentucky, Narcotics Detection, State Court, Vehicle Sniffs|0 Comments

United States v. Edmonds, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 74570 (E.D. Ky. Apr. 24, 2024) "In the bodycam footage, Trooper Gabriel told Edmonds that Dragon gave a passive alert to the presence of narcotics in the car, and he explained that meant Dragon would "either sit, or stare, or freeze if he has an indication that there is an odor of narcotics in the vehicle." Trooper Gabriel told Edmonds that Dragon alerted "right on your driver's side door handle." In the dashcam footage, however, Dragon does not sit, stare, or freeze at the driver's side door of the car. At the [...]

9 04, 2024

IOWA: Drug dog nose entering vehicle (4 to 6 inches) prior to “final alert” was a search.

By |2024-07-29T18:32:15+00:00April 9th, 2024|Iowa, Narcotics Detection, State Court, Vehicle Sniffs|0 Comments

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 [...]

13 03, 2024

AR Arkansas: Computer crash losing drug dog’s performance record doesn’t doom search

By |2024-07-29T18:41:55+00:00March 13th, 2024|Arkansas, Narcotics Detection, State Court|0 Comments

AR Arkansas: Computer crash losing drug dog’s performance record doesn’t doom search The loss of the drug dog’s performance record from a computer crash didn’t make the dog’s alert on the highway unreasonable because those records are of marginal importance. The circuit court resolved credibility questions. Whiting v. State, 2024 Ark. App. 176 n.2, 2024 Ark. App. LEXIS 179 (Mar. 13, 2024). The team had also recently certified and the court made reference to this fact as well.

5 03, 2024

WI Wisconsin: Drug dog’s entering car was trespass, and “instinct exception,” even if it could be recognized, doesn’t apply

By |2024-07-29T18:48:19+00:00March 5th, 2024|Narcotics Detection, State Court, Vehicle Sniffs, Wisconsin|0 Comments

State v. Campbell, 2024 Wisc. App. LEXIS 185 (Mar. 5, 2024) WI: Drug dog’s entering car was trespass, and “instinct exception,” even if it could be recognized, doesn’t apply Drug dog’s twice entering defendant’s car without probable cause was a common law trespass under Jones and Jardines, and the police unlawfully gained information from that. The court rejects the “instinct exception” for the dog on the facts here, even if the state would recognize it. State v. Campbell, 2024 Wisc. App. LEXIS 185 (Mar. 5, 2024) Entry of K9 found to be facilitated by handler in addition to court disagreement [...]

15 03, 2021

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

By |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 [...]

Go to Top