Eighth Circuit· 2/27/2014

United States v. David Holleman

Citations

743 F.3d 1152
2014 WL 747606
2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 3717

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).

Judges: Bye, Smith, Benton

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

24 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Cites

21 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.