United States v. Peter Jodoin

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that officers' actions did not violate the Fourth Amendment when, supported by probable cause, they held defendant's suitcase for several days, even though \a detector dog sniffed the suitcase but the dog did not signal the presence of narcotics\
• indicating that Jo-doin identified himself by the name “Harper” when questioned by drug enforcement agents
• holding that officers’ actions did not violate the Fourth Amendment when, supported by probable cause, they held defendant’s suitcase for several days, even though “a detector dog sniffed the suitcase but the dog did not signal the presence of narcotics”
• holding that officers’ actions did not violate the Fourth Amendment when, supported by 5 probable cause, they held defendant’s suitcase for several days, even though “a detector dog sniffed the suitcase but the dog did not signal the presence of narcotics”
• allowing STA exclusion for period between defendant's oral request for time to file motion and actual filing of motion
• excluding time that elapsed due to defendant's request for an extension of time as \directly attributable to [his] . . . motion\

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).