United States v. David Holleman

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that the court is “not concerned about” the dog’s “failure to give a full indication” because it gave “two definitive ‘alerts’”
• ruling that the drug dog’s alert was reliable enough to provide probable cause even though the dog failed to display a “full indication” of the drug’s location
• holding that the drug dog’s general alert established probable cause when viewed in light of the totality of the 13 circumstances available to the officer at the time of the stop
• affirming the denial of a motion to suppress evidence discovered as a result of a sniff by a dog with 57 percent “in-field” accuracy
• relying in part on dog’s conduct of “detailing” area twice before search to conclude probable cause existed
• noting dog stopped “dead in his tracks” and began “to really detail the area”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).