We recently held that a dog sniff around the exterior of a legitimately stopped motor vehicle is not a search requiring probable cause under either the Fourth Amendment or Minn. After his suppression motion was denied by the trial court, he pleaded guilty, while reserving the right to appeal the denial of his suppression motion.
By contrast, a dog sniff is limited to revealing only the presence of contraband. But that focus on the location of the search was helpful in that illuminated the very real difference between the search of a vehicle during a lawful traffic stop and the warrantless search of a home with an infrared camera.
As the trooper reported his actions back to headquarters, he was overheard by a member of the drug squad, who then arrived at the scene. Based on the firearms and ammunition seized from the storage unit, appellant was charged with illegal possession of a firearm under Minn.
After the three occupants of the car were taken out of the vehicle, the officer searched the car and found five glassine baggies containing suspected cocaine hidden inside or behind an armrest in the backseat. That's where Charlie comes in. On February 27,in a reported opinion, the intermediate appellate court reversed the judgment of the circuit court.
These are the key cases: The Florida Supreme Court flouted this established approach to determining probable cause. The agent also observed that a blue sports-utility vehicle left the fenced storage facility at the same time as the white car. Harris was arrested and charged with possession of chemicals with intent to manufacture narcotics.
Following Carroll, the Supreme Court has held that during a lawful traffic stop officers can compel the driver of a vehicle to exit the car.
If you think holding human cops accountable is tough, it's even more difficult when it comes to K-9s. Examples include the use of bomb-detection dogs to sniff for explosives, and humans detecting the odor of a decaying body or a methamphetamine laboratory. The defendant, Fondia, a backseat passenger, was removed from the car and told "that the dog had alerted and that [Officer] Gallagher was going to search him.
In other words, the verdict simply assumes — somewhat blindly — that sniffer dogs are always right. Indeed it appeared at the trial to require an expert to establish that fact.
On September 28,following a bench trial, respondent was convicted on an agreed statement of facts and was found guilty of possession with intent to distribute cocaine.
That court created a rigid set of requirements that a dog and handler would have to meet to support a finding of probable cause, including exhaustive training and certification records, field performance records, and records on how often the dog alerted without any drugs being found.
The dog sniff at Secure Mini Storage occurred approximately 4 weeks after a Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension BCA agent had observed what he believed to be suspicious activity at the facility. There simply was no link or further factual basis to connect respondent to drugs or to having committed any crime solely upon Bosco's positive scan of the vehicle owned and driven by another person.
In the meantime, a canine unit had arrived on the scene and gave a positive alert for narcotics in the car. Blumberg, the lawyer for defendant Joelis Jardines. Two factors are relevant to determine whether use of a specific law enforcement tool constitutes deadly force: Officer Ewing saw a 35mm film canister on the rear seat of the Mustang and he asked one of the men to retrieve the canister for him.
The area where the dog sniff was conducted is a semi-public walkway that is accessible to renters of other storage units, the management of the facility, and individuals there by consent. Respondent alleged at a suppression hearing that there was not probable cause for his search and, as a result, the cocaine seized from him at the time of his search should be suppressed as evidence to be used at trial.
A canine alert on the exterior of a vehicle does not support the proposition that the drugs potentially in the car are concealed on a particular occupant of that vehicle.
The same is true, even in the absence of formal certification, if the dog has recently and successfully completed a training program that evaluated his proficiency in locating drugs. The same is true, even in the absence of formal certification, if the dog has recently and successfully completed a training program that evaluated his proficiency in locating drugs.
The majority implies that Carter had a legitimate expectation of privacy outside his storage unit on indications that drug-detection dogs may be more fallible than previously supposed.
The applications also indicated that appellant had been convicted of possessing a pistol without a permit inand had three arrests, apparently not resulting in convictions, in and Conclusion As we have indicated we do not dispute that Bosco's positive alert provided evidence of a commission of a crime and that Bosco's alert, alone, provided adequate probable cause for the officers to search the automobile without a warrant.
In the alternative, he asks us to extend the holding of Wiegand to storage units, to require that police officers have a reasonable, articulable suspicion of criminal activity before performing a dog sniff. The canine sniff discloses only the presence or absence of narcotics, a contraband item.
Officer Hertik recognized respondent and two of the other passengers from a previous encounter, although in her testimony at the suppression hearing she did not describe that encounter. It is not enough to say that the privacy interest in a storage unit is heightened because it is designed as a repository for personal effects.
This case is similar to the situation in Fondia, where the defendant was in a car that had had a positive drug alert by a drug detection dog and the officer then removed the defendant from the car, searched him, found drug paraphernalia and arrested him.
The measure of likelihood is the same. The evidence could not be suppressed, and Caballes was ultimately sentenced to 12 years in prison for the crime of drug trafficking.
It does not take more probable cause to support a warrantless arrest than it does to support a warrantlessOn February 19,the United States Supreme Court handed down a long-awaited decision on whether an alert from a dog trained to detect contraband constitutes probable cause to think that contraband will be found in the place on which the dog alerted.
The case, Florida v.
Harris, arose in Liberty County, Florida, after Clayton Harris’ truck had been stopped by William Wheetley, a K A police dog, known in some English-speaking countries as a "K-9" or "K9" (a homophone of "canine"), is a dog that is specifically trained to assist police and other law-enforcement personnel.
Their duties include: searching for drugs and explosives, locating missing people, finding crime scene evidence, and attacking people targeted by the police.
State, So.2d& n. 5 (willeyshandmadecandy.com) (declining to find probable cause based on a drug sniff that occurred after officers obtained involuntary consent to search); People v.
Jan 12, · Place found a dog sniff “much less intrusive than a typical search,” though it could provide probable cause for greater intrusion into the luggage of an airline passenger. Caballes carried this logic to the period during which a legitimate traffic stop was being conducted.
probable cause supported by oath or affirmation. Advisory Warning: The Kentucky Search & Seizure Case Briefs is designed as a study and reference tool for officers in training.
Apr 13, · The search should be legal on 2 grounds. You were not unwillingly detained, you were receiving citations.
Second, they were likely in the process of impounding the car, since you were not allowed to legally operate it.Download