State Court Archives - Page 2 of 2

29 05, 2020

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

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

19 12, 2019

Federal Western District of Missouri – FedEx Package was not Seized by Moving for a Dog Sniff

By Clay Smith|2021-02-10T15:55:32+00:00December 19th, 2019|Federal Districts, Missouri, Narcotics Detection|0 Comments

United States v. Green, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 218043 (W.D. Mo. Dec. 19, 2019) The Court agrees with Judge Whitworth's analysis in all respects. Regarding the first issue, the police did not "seize" the package until after the dog alerted to the presence of drugs. It was not a seizure to remove the package from the FedEx conveyor belt, carry it 200 feet to the back of the warehouse, and subject it to a dog sniff. This was in accordance with FedEx's established procedures and requirement that dogs not be around the conveyor belt. As a result, FedEx did not lose [...]

13 11, 2019

Wisconsin Court of Appeals – Trained Tracking Dog was Hot Pursuit Entry onto Property Lawful

By Clay Smith|2021-02-10T16:08:17+00:00November 13th, 2019|State Court, Tracking, Wisconsin|0 Comments

State v. Ionescu, 2019 Wisc. App. LEXIS 610 (Nov. 13, 2019) Police received a 4 am burglary call, and an officer with a dog tracking smell and the officer tracking footprints in the dew on the ground led to defendant’s property. The officer knocked and defendant’s mother let the police in. Inside was defendant, and he had a watch that was from the burglary. The entry on the property was in hot pursuit and the entry into the house was by consent. Jeffrey Ionescuappeals from his judgment of conviction for burglary, challenging the circuit court’s denial of his motion to [...]

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 [...]

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 [...]

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 [...]

Categories

Tags