7 02, 2025

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

By |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 |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 [...]

15 11, 2024

CA6: No reasonable suspicion to extend stop for sniff – Rodriguez Violation

By |2025-01-29T00:02:15+00:00November 15th, 2024|CA6, Federal Circuits, Federal Districts|0 Comments

United States v. Taylor, 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 29055 (6th Cir. Nov. 15, 2024)   Case Summary: United States v. Taylor (2024) Jurisdiction: United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit Decision Date: 2024 Background On January 21, 2019, Officer Kristen Cox of the Knoxville Police Department stopped Nathaniel Taylor for speeding on Interstate 275 in Knoxville, Tennessee. During the stop, Officer Cox noticed several factors she considered suspicious: Multiple Air Fresheners: She observed multiple air fresheners in Taylor's vehicle, which she interpreted as an attempt to mask odors. Criminal History: She reviewed Taylor's criminal history, which included past [...]

19 09, 2024

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

By |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 |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 [...]

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 [...]

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 [...]

Go to Top