Probable Cause Archives

15 03, 2021

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

By Clay Smith|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 [...]

19 01, 2021

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

By Clay Smith|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 05, 2020

Alabama Court of Appeals – Dog Sniff at Apartment Door Unreasonable and Violation of Jardines

By Clay Smith|2021-02-08T22:35:01+00:00May 29th, 2020|Alabama, Narcotics Detection, Residence, State Court|0 Comments

Earl v. State, 2020 Ala. Crim. App. LEXIS 44 (May 29, 2020) “We consider whether the use of a drug-sniffing dog to sniff the door seams of the apartment was, under the reasoning of Jardines, an illegal search in violation of Earl’s Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable searches. We hold that it was, and that the remaining facts in the affidavit did not show probable cause to issue a search warrant for the apartment. We reverse and remand.” Earl v. State, 2020 Ala. Crim. App. LEXIS 44 (May 29, 2020): We agree with the reasoning of 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 [...]

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 [...]

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