United States v. Ralph Clayton Robinson, United States of America v. Jumenia Watts (1983)

Since the district court's finding that Nichols was familiar with Gironda's voice was not clearly erroneous, see United States v. Robinson, 707 F.2d 811, 814 (4th Cir.1983); United States v. Thomas, 586 F.2d 123, 133 (9th Cir.1978), this court will not disturb the district court's conclusion that the Government laid a proper foundation for Gironda's statement.

See United States v. McCranie, 703 F.2d 1213, 1218 (10th Cir. 1983) (alert by explosives-sniffing dog not trained to detect drugs created reasonable suspicion that defendant's suitcase contained contraband); United States v. Outlaw, 319 F.3d 701, 704 (5th Cir.2003) ("That the suitcase the canine alerted to later turned out to contain PCP, a drug the dog was not trained to detect, simply does not vitiate the agent's reasonable suspicion under these facts.”); United States v. …

We have stated that “[t]he detection of narcotics by a trained dog is generally sufficient to establish probable cause.” United States v. Robinson, 707 F.2d 811, 815 (4th Cir.1983); see also United States v. Jeffus, 22 F.3d 554, 557 (4th Cir.1994) (“IVhen the dog ‘alerted positive’ for the presence of drugs, the officer was given probable cause for the search that followed.”).

See, e.g., United States v. McCranie, 703 F.2d 1213, 1218 (10th Cir. 1983) (holding that an alert by an explosives-sniffing dog not formally trained to detect drugs nonetheless created reasonable suspicion that the defendant’s suitcase contained contraband); United States v. Robinson, 707 F.2d 811, 815 (4th Cir. 1983) (“His [the dog’s] initial detection [] was sufficient to establish probable cause for a search for controlled substances – the fact that a different controlled…

See, e.g., United States v. McCranie, 703 F.2d 1213, 1218 (10th Cir.1983) (holding that an alert by an explosives-sniffing dog not formally trained to detect drugs nonetheless created reasonable suspicion that the defendant’s suitcase contained contraband); United States v. Robinson, 707 F.2d 811, 815 (4th Cir.1983) (“His [the dog’s] initial detection [] was sufficient to establish probable cause for a search for controlled substances — the fact that a different controlled s…

P. 52(b); Manson v. Brathwaite, 432 U.S. 98, 114 (1977); United States v. Wilkinson, 137 F.3d 214, 223 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 119 S.Ct. 172 (1998); United States v. Robinson, 707 F.2d 811, 814 (4th Cir. 1983).

Since this evidence establishes the requisite “independent evidence” of Siripan’s participation in the conspiracy, the tape recorded conversations of Siripan’s co-conspirators were admissible against him under Fed.R.Evid. 801(d)(2)(E). 4 See United States v. Mitchell, 733 F.2d 327, 330 (4th Cir.1984), cert. denied, — U.S. ---, 105 S.Ct. 520 , 83 L.Ed.2d 409 (1985); United States v. Lee, 726 F.2d 128, 132 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S. ---, 104 S.Ct. 3540 , 82 L.Ed.2d 844 (…

KRE 901(b)(5); United States v. Robinson, 707 F.2d 811, 814 (4th Cir.1983); Campbell v. Commonwealth, Ky., 788 S.W.2d 260 (1990); Howard v. Commonwealth, Ky.App., 787 S.W.2d 264 (1989).

See, e.g., Allen, 990 F.2d at 671 n. 1 (deeming the lack of training “irrelevant”); United States v. Robinson, 707 F.2d 811, 815 (4th Cir.1983); United States v. Outlaw, 319 F.3d 701, 704 (5th Cir.2003); United States v. Ludwig, 641 F.3d 1243 , 1252 n. 6 (10th Cir.2011).

Florida v. Royer, 460 U.S. 491, 506 , 103 S.Ct. 1319 , 75 L.Ed.2d 229 (1983); Branch, 537 F.3d at 340 n. 2; United States v. Jeffus, 22 F.3d 554, 557 (4th Cir.1994); United States v. Robinson, 707 F.2d 811, 815 (4th Cir.1983).

We held that the drug dog’s alert during a pass of the vehicle “gave the police 5 Because appellant does not contest the existence of exigent circumstances in this case, we only address the probable cause issue. -6- probable cause to make the search.” Id. at 10 , 421 S.E.2d at 882 (citing United States v. Robinson, 707 F.2d 811, 815 (4th Cir. 1983) (detection of drugs by trained canine supplies probable cause for a search); see also United States v. Diaz, 25 F.3d 392, 393 (6…

See also United States v. Goldstein, 635 F.2d 356, 361-62 (5th Cir.1981); United States v. Waltzer, 682 F.2d 370, 372 (2nd Cir.1982); United States v. Robinson, 707 F.2d 811, 815 (4th Cir.1983); United States v. Klein, 626 F.2d 22, 27 (7th Cir.1980).

See United States v. Robinson, 707 F.2d 811, 813 (4th Cir.1983); United States v. Stroupe, 538 F.2d 1063, 1065 (4th Cir.1976).

See United States v. Robinson, 707 F.2d 811, 815 (4th Cir.1983); United States v. Waltzer, 682 F.2d 370, 372 (2d Cir.1982), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 103 S.Ct. 3543 , 77 L.Ed.2d 1392 (1983); United States v. Goldstein, 635 F.2d 356, 362 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 452 U.S. 962 , 101 S.Ct. 3111 , 69 L.Ed.2d 972 (1981); United States v. Klein, 626 F.2d 22, 27 (7th Cir.1980).

See United States v. Robinson, 707 F.2d 811, 815 (4th Cir.1983) (alert by dog trained to detect marijuana, cocaine, and heroin establishes probable cause and “the fact that a different controlled substance was actually discovered does not vitiate the legality of the search”).

See United States v. Robinson, 707 F.2d 811, 814 (4th Cir.1983).

See United States v. Robinson, 707 F.2d 811, 815 (4th Cir.1983).

See United States v. Robinson, 707 F.2d 811, 815 (4th Cir. 1983); United States v. Sullivan, 625 F.2d 9, 13 (4th Cir. 1980), cert. denied, 450 U.S. 923 (1981).

See also United States v. Robinson, 707 F.2d 811, 815 (4th Cir.1983) (rejecting defendant’s claim that dog’s alert to package did not constitute probable cause, because dog was not trained to detect the substances in the package; “[The drug dog’s] initial detection ... was sufficient to establish probable cause for a search for controlled substances—the fact that a different controlled substance was actually discovered does not vitiate the legality of the search”); United St…

See Opanowich v. Commonwealth, 196 Va. 342, 351-53 , 83 S.E.2d 432, 438 (1954); see also United States v. Robinson, 707 F.2d 811 (4th Cir. 1983).