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

By |March 5th, 2024|Categories: Narcotics Detection, State Court, Vehicle Sniffs, Wisconsin|Tags: , , , |

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 [...]

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

By |March 4th, 2024|Categories: Georgia, State Court|Tags: , , |

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)

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

By |December 19th, 2023|Categories: Narcotics Detection, New York, Person, State Court|Tags: , , , |

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)):

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

By |March 15th, 2021|Categories: CA10, Federal Circuits, Vehicle Sniffs|Tags: , , , |

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 [...]

K9 Case Law and the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals – Chain of Command

By |February 20th, 2021|Categories: Federal Circuits|

The Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) is the highest court in the federal judiciary of the United States of America. It has ultimate (and largely discretionary) appellate jurisdiction over all federal and state court cases that involve a point of federal law. The Court holds the power of judicial review, the ability to invalidate a statute for violating a provision of the Constitution. It is also able to strike down presidential directives for violating either the Constitution or statutory law. However, it may act only within the context of a case in an area of law over which it has jurisdiction. The United States Court of [...]

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

By |February 5th, 2021|Categories: Arkansas, State Court, Vehicle Sniffs|Tags: , |

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 [...]

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

By |January 19th, 2021|Categories: Narcotics Detection, Ohio, State Court, Vehicle Sniffs|Tags: , , , , |

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 [...]

CA9 – Qualified Immunity Denied – Clearly established precedent person not endangering officers or attempting to flee violated unreasonable seizure

By |December 7th, 2020|Categories: CA9, Federal Circuits, Use of Force|Tags: , , , |

Penaloza v. City of Rialto, 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 38050 (9th Cir. Dec. 7, 2020) We affirm the denial of qualified immunity as to Officer Jarrod Zirkle (“Zirkle”), Boda’s handler, for the release of Boda onto Goode. Goode was the passenger in a car Zirkle pulled over for an expired registration. The driver initially tried to evade police—leading Zirkle in a chase—but once the car stopped, Goode exited the car and knelt on the ground. Zirkle approached the passenger side of the car with Boda, planning to send Boda into the car to bite the driver, Erick Aguirre. Zirkle feared [...]

Kentucky Supreme Court – Unreasonable Delay for Drug Dog

By |October 29th, 2020|Categories: State Court, Vehicle Sniffs|Tags: , , |

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 [...]

CA6 – Dog Biting Handcuffed, Nonresisting Suspect is Excessive Force

By |September 4th, 2020|Categories: CA6, Federal Circuits, Use of Force|Tags: , , , |

Hammond v. County of Oakland, 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 28285 (9th Cir. Sept. 4, 2020) A police dog bit plaintiff while he was handcuffed and on the ground. That’s excessive force if a jury believes it was gratuitous. Qualified immunity denied. Hammond v. County of Oakland, 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 28285 (9th Cir. Sept. 4, 2020): The next segment came when Cadotte ordered Odin to bite Hammond after the deputies had handcuffed him. We have held that police violate the Fourth Amendment when they order a dog to bite a suspect who posed no threat to the officers’ safety and [...]