☰ In this section

The Champion

June 2016 , Page 14 

Search the Champion Looking for something specific?

Preview of Member Only Content

For full access: login or Become a Member Join Now

Letter to the Editor

By Rich Cassady

Read more Letter to the Editor columns.

A dash camera video provides the basis for a “win” in a dog-sniff case.


I enjoyed reading the canine search article — Fraud on the Courts: No Bones About It — by Jeff Weiner and Diego Weiner in the April 2016 issue. They wrote that “the increasingly prevalent use of video” may help the defense obtain positive results in these cases. Indeed.

Shortly after the U.S. Supreme Court decided Florida v. Harris in 2013, I had a dog alert case. The officer’s dash camera video saved my client. The officer parked his cruiser right behind the vehicle my client was in when it was stopped, and the dash camera captured all the action. Jeff and Diego are absolutely correct that, without video, defense attorneys are left with practically nothing to challenge the handler’s testimony that his dog alerted. With that video, however, I was able to hire my own dog expert, demonstrate to the court that the dog did not alert, and ultimately even overcome the “good faith exception” and get all the evid

Want to read more?

The Champion archive is reserved for NACDL members.

NACDL members, please login to read the rest of this article.

Not a member? Join now.
Join Now
Or click here to see an overview of NACDL Member benefits.

See what NACDL members say about us.

To read the current issue of The Champion in its entirety, click here.

  • Media inquiries: Contact NACDL's Director of Public Affairs & Communications Ivan J. Dominguez at 202-465-7662 or idominguez@nacdl.org
  • Academic Requests: Full articles of The Champion Magazine are available for academic and research purposes in the WestLaw and LexisNexis databases.
Advertisement Advertise with Us

In This Section

Advertisement Advertise with Us