Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Florida v. Harris, 568 U.S. 237 (2013), was a case in which the United States Supreme Court addressed the reliability of a dog sniff by a detection dog trained to identify narcotics, under the specific context of whether law enforcement's assertions that the dog is trained or certified is sufficient to establish probable cause for a search of a vehicle under the Fourth Amendment to the United ...
Jones claimed he was following proper canine handling procedure. The incident originally led to Jones being dismissed and North Carolina canceling its Highway Patrol K-9 program, but on November 22, 2010, a North Carolina Superior Court Judge ruled that Jones was improperly dismissed, and awarded Jones back salary and attorney fees.
Rodriguez v. United States, 575 U.S. 348 (2015), was a United States Supreme Court case which analyzed whether police officers may extend the length of a traffic stop to conduct a search with a trained detection dog. [1]
A North Carolina K-9 handler was caught on video lifting a dog by its leash and slamming the animal into a police vehicle, a disturbing incident that sparked outrage in the community and prompted ...
Florida v. Jardines, 569 U.S. 1 (2013), was a United States Supreme Court case which resulted in the decision that police use of a trained detection dog to sniff for narcotics on the front porch of a private home is a "search" within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution, and therefore, without consent, requires both probable cause and a search warrant.
The police were called when Oscar’s assigned canine handler noticed the show dog had disappeared mid-competition, a factor that did not play well for Jennings and McLeod when the case first went ...
The Supreme Court justices’ ruling on the first and most significant case Wednesday will likely give the final answer on whether the law’s revival window violates the North Carolina State ...
In the 2013 Washington state Supreme Court case State v Dye, the court found that it was not unduly prejudicial for facility dog Ellie who was trained by, and lives with, the prosecutor at Dye's trial. [12] Addressing the possibility of biasing the jury with the use of the courthouse facility dog, the court found the following: [13]