Canine Sniff

71 Florida cases classified under this topic · sorted by citation count · see the citation graph · browse and sort

• United States v. Cofield
  108 F. Supp. 2d 1374· S.D. Fla.· 2000-08-14 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the government failed to prove abandonment of the luggage, and therefore the warrantless search violated the defendant's Fourth Amendment rights.
• United States v. Hernandez
  976 F.2d 929· 5th Cir.· 1992-10-22 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the initial detention and exterior canine search of the defendant's car at a permanent border patrol checkpoint were constitutional.
• United States v. Decker
  956 F.2d 773· 8th Cir.· 1992-02-07 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the district court did not err in suppressing evidence seized from the Deckers' residence due to a facially deficient warrant and the issuing judge's failure to act neutrally, but reversed suppression of the UPS package contents pending further factual develop
• Crosby v. State
  492 So. 2d 1152· Fla. 3d DCA· 1986-08-12 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the temporary detention of the defendant was lawful, and the subsequent search warrant was based on probable cause, making the seized evidence admissible.
• Beecher v. State
  Fla. 1st DCA· 2024-12-18
  Matthew Beecher appeals the denial of a motion to suppress evidence from a dog sniff conducted during a traffic stop. The court held that the traffic stop was unlawfully extended beyond the time necessary to complete the traffic violation inquiry, rendering the dog sniff unconsti
• V. ID. No. 2203012514 Brandon Holmes
  Del. Super. Ct.· 2023-06-13
  The court held that both the apartment and storage unit search warrants were supported by sufficient probable cause. The canine sniff conducted in common areas did not constitute a Fourth Amendment search, and the affidavits, when viewed in a common-sense manner, provided a suffi
• Broomfield v. United States
  M.D. Fla.· 2020-08-10
  The court held that Petitioner's claims of ineffective assistance of counsel lacked merit because counsel's actions were reasonable or did not prejudice the defense, and the claims regarding prosecutorial authority were time-barred.
• Jefferson v. State
  240 So. 3d 875· Fla. 1st DCA· 2018-03-22
  Police did not unconstitutionally seize a vehicle during a traffic stop when they initiated a K9 sniff twenty minutes after arresting the driver, because the vehicle was parked and uncontrolled with no one authorized to take possession of it during the interim period.
• V. Crim. I.D. No.: 1710003809 Bakr Dillard
  Del. Super. Ct.· 2018-03-16
  The Court granted the Defendant's Motion to Suppress, finding that the State failed to establish reasonable articulable suspicion to justify the prolonged detention for a drug investigation. The initial traffic stop for improper window tint was lawful, but the officer's decision
• United States v. Sanchez
  408 F. Supp. 2d 1255· S.D. Fla.· 2005-12-15
  The court held that the initial traffic stop was lawful, and the subsequent brief detention was justified by reasonable suspicion arising from inconsistent statements and other factors, leading to probable cause for the search.
• United States v. Brown
  298 F. Supp. 2d 1317· S.D. Fla.· 2004-01-24
  The court held that the search of the defendant's cruise ship cabin was a lawful border search, either routine or supported by reasonable suspicion, and thus denied the motion to suppress.
• United States v. Maria E. DE LOS Santos Ferrer
  999 F.2d 7· 1st Cir.· 1993-07-15
  The court held that a defendant's explicit disclaimer of ownership of luggage forfeits any expectation of privacy, allowing police to search the luggage without a warrant, even if the defendant later allegedly consented or a dog alerted to the luggage.
• United States v. McFARLEY
  991 F.2d 1188· 4th Cir.· 1993-04-20
  The dissenting judge believes the police conduct constituted an illegal seizure of McFarley, which tainted the subsequent seizure of his luggage.
• United States v. Seals
  987 F.2d 1102· 5th Cir.· 1993-03-24
  The court held that the dog sniff was not a search under the Fourth Amendment, and that probable cause existed to search the vehicle, independently supported by the inevitable discovery doctrine. The court also affirmed the trial court's Batson ruling and other issues raised.
• United States v. Carter
  985 F.2d 1095· D.C. Cir.· 1993-02-23
  The court held that the district court did not err in denying the motion to suppress evidence because the defendant voluntarily consented to the search of his tote bag and the detective had reasonable suspicion to detain the paper bag for a canine sniff.
• Forrester v. State
  565 So. 2d 391· Fla. 1st DCA· 1990-08-09
  The court held that the defendant failed to preserve the issue of a violation of his privacy rights under the Florida Constitution by not raising it in the trial court.
• United States v. Benny Carl Lovell
  849 F.2d 910· 5th Cir.· 1988-07-01
  The court held that the Border Patrol agents' actions of removing, compressing, and smelling the defendant's luggage did not constitute an unlawful search or seizure under the Fourth Amendment.
• United States v. Beale
  674 F.2d 1323· 9th Cir.· 1982-04-22
  The court held that the use of trained canines to detect contraband within personal luggage constitutes a Fourth Amendment intrusion requiring at least founded suspicion, not merely a reasonable belief.