United States v. Beene, No. 14-30476 (5th Cir. 2016)
Annotate this CaseDefendant conditionally plead guilty to being a felon in possession and reserved his right to appeal the denial of his motion to suppress with respect to the search of his automobile and his post-arrest statements. The court concluded that, even if use of a police dog presents a greater intrusion than a typical open-fields search, there is no reasonable expectation of privacy in sights or odors existing in an open field, in plain view or smell, which do not require a physically invasive inspection. In this case, the dog sniff was permissible. The court concluded however, that the district court did not make factual findings about whether exigent circumstances were present sufficient to justify a warrantless search under the automobile exception. Therefore, the court vacated the judgment and remanded for further proceedings. Because the court remanded for further proceedings, the admissibility of defendant's post-arrest statements may be reconsidered if an alternative basis to justify the search of his vehicle is presented to the district court and accepted.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.