California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from People v. Bell, 43 Cal.App.4th 754, 51 Cal.Rptr.2d 115 (Cal. App. 1996):
The defendant argued that his consent to search did not extend to use of the dog. The appellate court disagreed, for two reasons: First, a canine sniff search performed on the exterior of a vehicle is minimally intrusive; and second, the defendant did not object to use of the dog. (37 F.3d at p. 516.) " 'Failure to object to the continuation of a vehicle search after giving general consent to search "is properly considered as an indication that the search was within the scope of the initial consent." ' " (Ibid., quoting U.S. v. [43 Cal.App.4th 772] Cannon (9th Cir.1994) 29 F.3d 472, 477, quoting United States v. Sierra-Hernandez (9th Cir.1978) 581 F.2d 760, 764, cert. den., 439 U.S. 936, 99 S.Ct. 333, 58 L.Ed.2d 333.)
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.