Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Criminal Law Blogs -> Fourth Amendment

Criminal Law

: Fourth Amendment

W.D.Mo.: Court puts burden on defendant to show drug dog not "well trained"

By John Wesley Hall, Jr.

Defendant’s car was stopped because there was a person in it wanted for drug offenses. The officers then called a drug dog that alerted on the car. The defendant did not show that the drug dog was not a “well trained” dog [and why is it the defendant’s burden to show that?]. As to the search of the defendant’s house, there was a question of standing since he had been in jail for a year and the rent was unpaid, but the standing question does not need to be decided. Instead, it was a private search by the landlord. United States v. Claude X, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 49046 (W.D. Mo. April 16, 2010).* The government never conceded that defendant had standing in the apartment with a working meth lab. Anyway, standing was decided in the direct appeal, so it could not be raised in this § 2255...continue to full post

Full post as published by Fourth Amendment on May 21, 2010 (boomark / email).