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 [...]

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 [...]

5 02, 2021

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

By |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 [...]

19 01, 2021

Ohio Supreme Court- Delay in finding car insurance enabled a reasonable dog sniff

By |2021-02-08T20:03:28+00:00January 19th, 2021|Narcotics Detection, Ohio, State Court, Vehicle Sniffs|0 Comments

021-Ohio-119, 2021 Ohio App. LEXIS 108 (5th Dist. Jan. 19, 2021) The trial court found, and we agree, that Trooper Browne did not unreasonably prolong the stop. There was testimony that he was still in the process of conducting the traffic stop when he walked his K9 around appellant’s vehicle. Appellant was still in the process of looking for proof of insurance. Approximately thirteen minutes had passed between the stop and the K9 sniff and appellant was still attempting to locate current proof of insurance. As noted by the trial court, Trooper Browne testified that he was going to give [...]

29 10, 2020

Kentucky Supreme Court – Unreasonable Delay for Drug Dog

By |2021-02-08T21:28:15+00:00October 29th, 2020|State Court, Vehicle Sniffs|0 Comments

Commonwealth v. Mitchell, 2020 Ky. LEXIS 394 (Oct. 29, 2020) AFFIRMING IN PART, REVERSING IN PART,AND REMANDING We outlined in Davis v. Commonwealth our test for when officers impermissibly extend stops. In Davis we stated, “[t]here is no ‘de minimis exception’ to the rule that a traffic stop cannot be prolonged for reasons unrelated to the purpose of the stop.” A stop is unreasonably extended when the “tasks tied to the traffic infraction are –or reasonably should have been –completed...” In Smith v. Commonwealth, a canine officer, at the request of police detectives who had been surveilling Smith, initiated a [...]

29 05, 2020

Alabama Court of Civil Appeals – $52,560 – Dog Alert without Presence of Drugs Fails to Support Asset Forfeiture

By |2021-02-10T16:34:56+00:00May 29th, 2020|Alabama, Narcotics Detection, State Court, Vehicle Sniffs|0 Comments

Martinez-Camacho v. State, 2019 Ala. Civ. App. LEXIS 102 (Aug. 2, 2019) Based on the precedents described above, we are not persuaded by the State's argument based on Agee, Wherry,$10,000, and Harris, all of which are distinguishable in pertinent respects regarding the relationship between the property and purported drug transactions at issue. The facts in the present case reflect that a drug-detection dog alerted to an unknown narcotic of unknown legality and of unknown quantity, at an unknown specific location (truck or money), in a vehicle where a few stacks of possibly illegally acquired, bound cash were hidden. The only [...]

8 05, 2020

Ohio Court of Appeals 6th District – Intentionally Stalling Traffic Stop for Dog was Unreasonable

By |2021-02-10T15:37:20+00:00May 8th, 2020|Narcotics Detection, Ohio, State Court, Vehicle Sniffs|0 Comments

State v. Werder, 2020-Ohio-2865, 2020 Ohio App. LEXIS 1835 (6th Dist. May 8, 2020) There was no reasonable suspicion to continue the stop in this case. The officer called for backup and a dog, and the first officer there told him to stall for the dog. Nothing was done for eight minutes to pursue the basis of the traffic stop. The state did not argue that reasonable, articulable suspicion of criminal activity arose during the traffic stop to justify further detaining Werder; it made no closing argument and filed no brief in opposition to Werder’s motion to suppress, despite the [...]

29 04, 2020

Arkansas Court of Appeals – Drug Dog Alerted While Warning Being Written Did Not Extent Stop

By |2021-02-10T15:42:07+00:00April 29th, 2020|Arkansas, Narcotics Detection, State Court, Vehicle Sniffs|0 Comments

Mickens v. State, 2020 Ark. App. 280, 2020 Ark. App. LEXIS 307 (Apr. 29, 2020) Here, Officer Collins testified that he was still in the process of writing appellant’s warning ticket when Detective Robertson arrived with Zeke. Therefore, the legitimate purpose of the stop had not ended when Zeke alerted on appellant’s vehicle. Once Zeke alerted on the vehicle, there was no additional suspicion needed for the vehicle to be searched.[15] And to the extent that appellant attempts to argue that there was no reasonable suspicion to allow the dog to sniff the exterior of the car, this argument also [...]

Go to Top