Nafeesa Syeed v. Bloomberg

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• noting that evidentiary value of drug detecting dog’s alert has been called into question in light of large amount of currency tainted with drugs
• holding that there was no probable cause supporting the forfeiture of defendant funds seized in an airport where (1) claimants nervously waited to board a plane to Dallas, Texas; (2) claimants purchased tickets the same day in cash; and (3) a dog alerted positively to the money
• applying the continue his radio broadcasts without interference from the Fourth Amendment exclusionary rule in a forfeiture case
• finding an expectation of privacy “in items carried on one’s person”
• while dog’s alerting linked currency to controlled substances, it did not link the claimant’s use of the currency to controlled substances
• factors relied on by the government to show probable cause were equally consistent with others kinds of illegal activity not involving drugs; dog alert proved nothing.

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).