United States v. Walter H. Martin

How courts have described this case

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

• finding that the canine unit’s approximately 20 minute response time was not an unreasonable delay
• finding that the canine unit’s approximately 20 minute response time was not an unreasonable delay
• rejecting argument that cross-examination of arresting officer would have enabled defendant \to identify facts necessary for the district court to rule on the suppression motion\
• relying on Caballes and holding there was no unreasonable delay in detaining the defendant for drug sniffing investigation that began twenty minutes after a drug dog was summoned
• considering the events that led the arresting officer to detain (continued...
• “[F]ailure to produce a valid driver’s license necessitated additional questioning while the trooper ascertained whether or not Mr. Martin was a licensed driver.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).