Hypothetical question concerning correct jurisprudence. If one is pulled over (in Ohio) for a routine traffic stop, and the driver of the car seems mildly nervous upon bring pulled over while producing the license, registration, and insurance, and due to the nervousness of driver (which is a natural response) the officer asks permission to search the vehicle, and the driver declines, as a consequence the officer tells the driver that he will have a k9 unit walk the peripheral of the vehicle, and that if there was no positive on the part of the 9k then in that case they would not engage in vehicle search.
After completing several circuits around the vehicle the k9 does not respond (bark) at all, after which the k9 is withdrawn; however the police inspite of that, still engage in a search of the vehicle, in which an item of minor paraphernalia is discovered. In such a case Is the product of the search in this case fruit of the poison tree, and thus not admissible in court?
After completing several circuits around the vehicle the k9 does not respond (bark) at all, after which the k9 is withdrawn; however the police inspite of that, still engage in a search of the vehicle, in which an item of minor paraphernalia is discovered. In such a case Is the product of the search in this case fruit of the poison tree, and thus not admissible in court?
