State Court Archives

7 02, 2025

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

By Clay Smith|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 Clay Smith|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 [...]

19 09, 2024

WY: Free Air Sniff of publicly accessible vehicle does not require RS – Free Air Sniff

By Clay Smith|2025-01-29T00:13:35+00:00September 19th, 2024|Wyoming|0 Comments

Labbe v. State, 2024 WY 99, 2024 Wyo. LEXIS 101 (Sep. 19, 2024). Wyoming Supreme Court Clarifies K9 Search and Seizure in Public Parking Lot Case The Wyoming Supreme Court recently issued a critical ruling in the case of Robert James Labbe v. The State of Wyoming (Opinion No. S-24-0038, Sept. 19, 2024). This decision sheds light on the legality of canine sniffs, Fourth Amendment protections, and law enforcement practices surrounding searches in public areas. For K9 handlers, law enforcement officers, and legal professionals, this case provides valuable insights into the interplay between free-air sniffs and search-and-seizure law. Overview of [...]

27 08, 2024

TX14: Dog nose crossed the threshold – unreasonable

By Clay Smith|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 Clay Smith|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 Clay Smith|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 Clay Smith|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 Clay Smith|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 [...]

4 03, 2024

GA Georgia: Officer didn’t have to distinguish between smell of MJ, hemp, and CBD to have PC to search car

By Clay Smith|2024-07-29T18:49:38+00:00March 4th, 2024|Georgia, State Court|0 Comments

Under existing precedent, the smell of suspected marijuana couldn’t be distinguished between hemp and CBD, and that was still probable cause for search of the car. Coverstone v. State, 2024 Ga. App. LEXIS 90 (Mar. 4, 2024)

19 12, 2023

NY: New York Dog sniff of the person is a search

By Clay Smith|2024-07-29T18:36:50+00:00December 19th, 2023|Narcotics Detection, New York, Person, State Court|0 Comments

People v. Butler State of New York A dog sniff of the person is a search. There is a greater zone of privacy for the person than an inanimate object. People v. Butler, 2023 NY Slip Op 06468, 2023 N.Y. LEXIS 2023 (Dec. 19, 2023), aff’g and remanded, 196 A.D.3d 28, 148 N.Y.S.3d 286 (3d Dept 2021)):

Categories

Tags