Narcotics Detection Archives - Page 3 of 3

20 08, 2019

Ohio Court of Appeals – Dog Alert is not PC to Search Passenger

By Clay Smith|2021-02-10T16:13:40+00:00August 20th, 2019|Narcotics Detection, Ohio, State Court, Vehicle Sniffs|0 Comments

State v. Chapman, 2019-Ohio-3339, 2019 Ohio App. LEXIS 3422 (7th Dist. Aug. 20, 2019) Turning to the facts in this case, there is no question that Hyra’s alert established probable cause to search the automobile. In its response to the motion to suppress before the trial court, the State advocated the adoption of the bright line rule announced by the Tenth Circuit in Anchondo, supra, that a canine alert on a vehicle, like the odor of burning marijuana in Moore, supra, establishes probable cause for a warrantless search of both the vehicle and its occupants. We choose instead to adopt [...]

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 [...]

2 01, 2018

Ohio Court of Appeals – Drug Dog on Scene while Ticket Written Caused no Additional Detention

By Clay Smith|2021-02-10T15:14:21+00:00January 2nd, 2018|Narcotics Detection, Ohio, State Court, Vehicle Sniffs|0 Comments

State v. White, 2018-Ohio-18, 2018 Ohio App. LEXIS 3 (4th Dist. Jan. 2, 2018) Defendant’s stop was with reasonable suspicion based on corroborated informant hearsay. “Because the police were still in the process of writing the traffic ticket when the canine arrived and conducted the sniff, and thus the stop was not unlawfully extended.” With regards to Case No. 16CR135, White does not allege that the initial traffic stop of his vehicle was unlawful. Rather, he contends that the canine sniff of his vehicle unlawfully extended the traffic stop. Again, we disagree. Rather, after reviewing the record, we conclude that [...]

21 04, 2015

S.C.O.T.U.S. – Extended Detention and the K9 Sniff – Rodriguez v United States

By Clay Smith|2021-02-08T16:23:24+00:00April 21st, 2015|SCOTUS, Vehicle Sniffs|0 Comments

Rodriguez v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 1609 (2015) DENNYS RODRIGUEZ, PETITIONER v. UNITED STATES ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT April 21, 2015 JUSTICE GINSBURG delivered the opinion of the Court. In Illinois v. Caballes, 543 U. S. 405 (2005), this Court held that a dog sniff conducted during a lawful traffic stop does not violate the Fourth Amendment’s proscription of unreasonable seizures. This case presents the question whether the Fourth Amendment tolerates a dog sniff conducted after completion of a traffic stop. We hold that a police stop exceeding the time needed to handle [...]

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