Facts of the Case

On May 20, 2019, a man robbed a credit union in Midlothian, Virginia. Investigators interviewed witnesses and reviewed surveillance video. The footage showed the suspect carrying and apparently using a cellular telephone before the robbery, but investigators were unable to identify the suspect through traditional investigative methods.

Detectives obtained a geofence warrant directed to Google. The warrant required Google to search its Location History database and identify every device located within approximately 150 meters of the credit union during the relevant time period.

The warrant operated in three stages:

1. Google produced anonymized location data for every qualifying device within the geofence.
2. Investigators narrowed the list based on movement patterns, and Google provided additional anonymous location data.
3. After investigators identified several devices of interest, Google disclosed subscriber information associated with those accounts.

The investigation ultimately identified Okello Chatrie, whose movements were consistent with those of the robber. Additional investigation linked Chatrie to the robbery, and he was prosecuted in federal court.

‍

Chatrie filed a Motion to Suppress the location data obtained through the geofence warrant, asserting that the obtaining of his cell phone location data was serch under the Fourth Amendment and that the warrant obtained by law enforcement lacked probable cause.

The District Court found that the geofence warrant "plainly violates the Fourth Amendment" but denied the Motion to Suppress based on the good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court's ruling on different reasoning, holding that no search occurred because Chatrie "did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in two hours ' worth of location history data voluntarily exposed to Google". The Supreme Court granted review solely on the question of whether the police violated the Fourth Amendment in obtaining Chatrie's location data.

Supreme Court Holding

On June 29, 2026, the Supreme Court held that law enforcement conducts a Fourth Amendment search when it acquires historical cell-phone location information through a geofence warrant from Google or any other provider. The court concluded that individuals maintain a reasonable expectation of privacy in their historical location information even when the information is stored by a third-party service provider such as Google. The court rejected the government's argument that users automatically lose Fourth Amendment protections simply because their location information is voluntarily shared with a technology company. Importantly, the Court did not decide whether the warrant used in Chatrie ultimately satisfied the Fourth Amendment's probable cause and particularity requirements. Instead, it remanded the case for further proceedings to determine whether the specific geofence warrant in this case met constitutional standards.

Officer Considerations

Officers Should recognize that:

• Accessing historical location data through a geofence warrant is now considered a Fourth Amendment search.
• Even though Google changed Location History in July 2025 so that data stored is stored on individual devices, other companies (Apple, Lyft, Uber, Snapchat, etc...) use location data and this decision extends to location data generally.
• Geofence warrants are subject to constitutional scrutiny including probable cause and particularity requirements
• A Geofence Warrant should be broken down into three separate warrants establishing probable cause for each step of the search.
• Investigators should expect closer judicial review of requests seeking location information involving multiple unknown individuals.
• Applications should be narrowly tailored in geographic scope, time period, and investigative necessity.
• Officers should consult prosecutors and legal advisors before seeking geofence warrants to ensure compliance with evolving constitutional standards.

Practical Impact

This decision does not prohibit geofence warrants. Instead, it requires courts to evaluate under traditional Fourth Amendment standards rather than treating the information as unprotected because it is held by a third party.

Investigators should anticipate increased judicial scrutiny and should ensure affidavits clearly articulate:

• the factual basis established probable cause;
• How the geographic area is related to the crime under investigation;
• That the requested time period is narrowly tailored to the information sought; and
• Why less intrusive methods, if available, would be insufficient to identify a suspect(s).

‍

‍

By the numbers, the total of ten law enforcement K-9 heatstroke deaths that occurred in 2025 fits right into the historical pattern — more than 2024, but less than 2023, and the same, on average, with the decade prior.

Still, there was a positive development: K-9 heatstroke deaths were more widely and forthrightly acknowledged by law enforcement agencies. This trend of quickly informing the public, and taking more explicit responsibility for these tragedies — most of them avoidable — is a step forward in actively addressing the problem.

2025 K-9 Heatstroke Deaths

As reported in public media

Kai4/23/25Bristol TN PDTraining

Scout5/27/25Suffolk VA PDTracking

Baxter5/28/25Maine DPSIn-vehicle

Henk6/21/25Helen GA PDTraining

Ender6/25/25Dorchester Cty. MD SheriffIn-vehicle

Sam7/8/25Lexington Cty. SC SheriffTraining

Georgia7/13/25Dade Cty. GA SheriffIn-vehicle

Karma8/8/25Isanti Cty. MN SheriffTracking

Archer9/4/25Hawai'i Cty. HI PDIn-vehicle

Cooper9/5/25Muskingum Cty. OH SheriffIn-vehicle

This year, two K-9s died while deployed in tracking, a primary duty of K-9 teams, with recognized risk. The other eight deaths were unrelated to law enforcement action. Three occurred during or soon after organized training events. Five K-9s perished while confined in a vehicle.

Whether deployed at their most instinctual tasks, exercising in-step with their beloved Handler, or secured per protocol inside their specially-equipped duty vehicle — that is to say, practically anywhere in the course of their typical daily activities — healthy K-9's are at risk of suddenly incurring heatstroke and dying. Just as ubiquitously true is that, no one is more shocked and heartbroken by a K-9's heatstroke death than their Handler.

A Hopeful Trend

By the numbers, 2025 K-9 heatstroke deaths and their causes persisted in line with the long-term trend. But important cultural progress was demonstrated by departments' public acknowledgement of most of this year's tragedies. In general the reports were met by immediate social media response that was broadly angry, but also to some extent, sympathetic. Most reports triggered a cascade of external and internal challenges.

Each death was investigated internally, and in some cases, externally. Several Handlers were charged and/or fired outright. Others were disciplined. Probably none will be assigned to police K-9 duty ever again.

The departments took their lumps — public outrage, internal penitence, the loss of the canine's unique policing skills, a disgraced officer, disrepute among K-9 unit funding and support institutions, etc.

Some departments undertook internal review of the policy and protocol failures that may have contributed to the tragedy. One department made their internal findings and corrections public, by declaring policy changes where gaps had been found deficient.

Accepting tough medicine is an important cultural change. Not long ago, most unnecessary K-9 deaths were kept quiet, and responsibility obscured. This tendency persists: one department made a concerted effort to obfuscate a K-9's in-vehicle death. While the officers involved eluded statutory consequence, the department finds itself months later still under a spotlight and still in civil jeopardy, while their oversight governance structure is embarrassed by their inability to implement meaningful accountability.

Acceptance is the First Step

Ultimately, 2025 was another bad year for K-9 heatstroke. But wider acknowledgement of unnecessary K-9 deaths by departments, even in the face of severe consequences, is becoming a strong impetus to finally start acting effectively against heatstroke risk in 2026.

K-9Cooler's mission to AVOID, ALLEVIATE, and PREVENT heat injury to working dogs has inspired development of active-principle products that are effective against heat injury. Visit our store to learn how the K-9 Heatstroke Emergency Field Kit can multiply your K-9's chance of surviving a serious heat injury episode, and save your department from the disgrace of an unnecessary K-9 death.

*Joshua Davidson is the Founder of K-9Cooler, which makes products to AVOID, ALLEVIATE, and PREVENT heat injury to working dogs, including the K-9 Heatstroke Emergency Field Kit.*

‍

Scope of a Search When Executing a Search Warrant

USA v. Evans, (3d Cir. 2026) May 19th 2026

In United States v. Evans, officers obtained a warrant to search a New Jersey hotel room for evidence connecting its occupant to illegal firearms. During the search, a detective noticed a piece of broken ceiling tile sitting on the bed. Standing on the bed, he pressed on the damaged tile, causing a loaded pistol magazine to fall from the ceiling. Searching the area above the drop ceiling, officers recovered duffel bags containing drugs, cash, and other incriminating evidence.

Evans argued the search exceeded the warrant’s scope. The 3rd Circuit disagreed, holding the ceiling space was a reasonable place to search for the items listed in the warrant. The damaged ceiling, the fallen magazine, and Evans’ opportunity to access the area all supported the detective’s decision to search the ceiling cavity.

A search warrant authorizes officers to look anywhere the listed evidence could reasonably be hidden. As the U.S. Supreme Court explained in United States v. Ross (456 U.S. 798, 824 (1982)), the scope of a lawful search is defined by “the object of the search and the places in which there is probable cause to believe that it may be found.”

The principle is straightforward. A warrant for drugs, firearms, ammunition, cash, or documents may justify searching drawers, backpacks, crawlspaces … and the space above a drop ceiling. A warrant for a stolen refrigerator likely does not.

That’s precisely why the search in Evans was upheld. Firearm accessories and identifying evidence could reasonably have been hidden above the ceiling tiles.

‍

As the creator of PACKTRACK and an expert in the field I’m commonly asked about extending our K9 record keeping system to compute an accuracy percentage statistic during K9 detection training.

The requested method of calculating this statistic is simple. If the dog finds or “hits” the target odor then it’s marked as correct. When the dog doesn’t find or “misses” the target odor then it’s marked as incorrect. If the dog indicates that a target odor is present when it isn’t (sometimes referred to as a “false alert”) then it’s also marked as incorrect. The statistic is calculated based on the percentage of correct responses.

The request for this feature may come from a misunderstanding of the 2013 Supreme Court case of Florida v Harris or be based on advice received from a trainer. The US Supreme Court ruling in this case explicitly rejected an earlier Florida court ruling that favored “rigid rules” in favor of a “Totality of Circumstances” approach. The key problem with using an accuracy percentage calculation in deployments is that it’s impossible to accurately say whether the dog was incorrect. The Supreme Court ruling went even further by stating that probable cause cannot be and has never been based on a “bright-line test” such as a statistical calculation. Probable cause is based on a “totality of the circumstances” analysis. Based on this decision, the idea of using an accuracy statistic for training would not be beneficial in court.

Another problem with this idea is it presumes that the outcome of a training exercise provides confirmation that the training was done correctly. It seems logical to assume that hits are correct responses while misses and false alerts are incorrect responses. However, this simplification reads more into the data than is captured. The idea that we can equate locating a target odor (a hit) to a determination of whether the training was done correctly is absurd. It’s like presuming that since no tangible substance was found after a K9 indication during a deployment that this indication must have been a false alert or somehow incorrect.

Behavior modification in drug detection training is mainly done with positive reinforcement at the appropriate time. Handlers can inadvertently train canines to respond to a “cue”, a behavior, sound, or action that the canine learns as a signal to respond in a positive way that a target odor is present. The canine learns this behavior over a series of exercises where the cue (an action taken by the handler) was done and the canine was rewarded in a positive manner. This cueing is consistently reinforced by the handler during training exercises and may cause what some call a “false alert”. While this “false alert” will be correctly marked as an incorrect response by the dog, it is actually a red flag that there is a training issue. The real incorrect training exercises are those prior to the “false alert”, when the handler performed the cue where target odor was concealed, and the canine was rewarded. During those exercises the canine was taught the cue. These exercises would be marked as “hits” with the presumption that the exercises were conducted correctly when in fact they were not.

An accuracy statistic requires that we read too much into the outcome of an exercise. There is no way to provide this statistic and we shouldn’t try. Training time should be focused on finding and correcting the problems that we, as handlers and trainers, may have caused. Training is the time to push teams to their limits and beyond. Handlers should come to training feeling free to make and learn from their mistakes so they can prevent and correct them in future training. Exercises should condition handlers to perform proper technique while increasing their knowledge and perfecting the skill of dog handling.

In using the proposed statistic handlers are forced to only work to the limit of correct performance. They will only do exercises that they know they can complete properly in order to maximize their accuracy percentage. Who would want to push themselves to the point of error if a statistic, which provides no explanation, will be used to gauge their reliability?

My advice is to be careful if you quantify your hits, misses and false alerts as a percentage of accuracy. You are keeping records that can negatively impact the quality of your training and provide a false sense of proper training. And, if you’re challenged in court, it’s unlikely that this statistic will do much to help you win a reliability argument. There are better ways to train and document your records and we will talk about this in future posts. Stay tuned.

‍

I periodically receive questions asking if the PACKTRACK record keeping system collects “double blind training” data. I was recently contacted by a new supervisor who was attending a class where this was discussed. It was his impression that the instructor was advocating for double blind training and that this was a necessary requirement to prove reliability. I can’t comment directly on the instruction as I wasn’t there. However, I do have considerable experience in this area. I’m also quite familiar with the views expressed by a range of defense experts, podcast authorities and trainers.

It’s easy to confuse the clinical definition of this topic with the practical application for police K9 training. In a double blind study, neither the participants nor the experimenters are aware of the test details. This helps eliminate bias and human influence. As a result, it’s considered the “gold standard” for scientific research. So why wouldn’t we use the same methodology for K9 training?

To properly explore this topic we need to start with a shared understanding of what “double blind” means in the context of police K9 training. Let’s see how it would work. In this type of training neither the handler nor the trainer can know:

•  If the target odor is present
•  Where the target odor is concealed
•  The intended purpose or goal of the training exercise

Think about what this might mean for the quality of training that you and your K9 receive. By applying this rigid model, the handler and trainer:

•  Don’t know if the final response was correct
•  Don’t know if the target odor was missed
•  Don’t know if the target odor was found using proper handling skills
•  Don’t know why a target odor wasn’t found (was it the dog, the handler, the environment?)
•  Can’t take corrective action at the appropriate time to effectively train and condition the behavior of the dog or the handler

This isn’t training, it’s shared ignorance. The timing of actions taken by the handler to correct or reinforce the behavior of the dog is critical to properly conditioning the canine. How are the handler, trainer and K9 supposed to improve under these conditions?

Rewarding or correcting a detection canine in an effective manner simply isn’t possible in a “double blind training” environment. Our goal is to train with intention and purpose. We want to correct or reinforce behaviors in a timely manner and push the handler and canine beyond their comfort zones. This is how we grow confidence and proficiency.

Please don’t misunderstand. I’m not against “double blind testing“. This is a very real activity that may be needed depending on the circumstances. However, “double blind training” just isn’t a thing. If you want to test yourself or your teams then please do so. Just don’t call it training.

‍

Make me Understand…

What your tattoos, your stickers, andyour t-shirts say about you as a L.E. professionals?

Exhibits 1 thru 14 were photographs of the defendant officer who was being sued for excessive use of force with his police dog. Many of the photographs appeared to have been copied from social media posts and all of them had graphic designs relating to police dogs or law enforcement in some relatable way. The line of questioning during the defendant’s civil deposition went something like this…

Officer, do you recognize the arms and tattoos in this photograph? The officer answers, yes, these are my arms and tattoos. Are any of your tattoo’s numbers and if so, what do they mean? The officer affirms that there are vertical hashes which represent one number for each. The 5^th line marks across four vertical lines to represent 5 in total for easier tabulation. The next question was, how many do these lines total in number? The officer replied, 57, then chuckles and says, “I am starting to run out of room for more.” The plaintiff’s attorney asks, what do these numbers mean? The officer answers back, “I have one for each dog bite that I’ve had with my police dog.”

The next several photographs were of stickers on the back of the officer’s laptop while it was mounted in his police car. The graphics were of aggressive dog heads, showing their teeth, a cartoon sticker with a police dog holding a severed human arm. More photographs depicted T-shirts that had the same types of graphics. One shirt had “TSGB” on it and the plaintiff’s attorney asked what that meant. The officer said, it means Talk Shit Get Bit.

I’d like to suggest to you, to consider these things from the perspective of someone outside the law enforcement profession. How do you think people might react and what opinions of us do you think they might have of us when they see these things? Our thoughts are expressed openly and displayed publicly with pictures and phrases written on the things that we wear and use daily. I would encourage you to represent yourself and the rest of us more professionally and less controversially.

These photographs/exhibits were introduced to the courts during this litigation for the exclusive purpose of demonstrating the mindset of the officer. He was keeping track of his bites by marking each one as a tattoo. The officer was keeping score and celebrating police violence to boast about the number of police dog bites he was getting. Most of our citizens have very little or no contact with police officers during their lives. The legal scrutiny that comes from the sayings on the shirts, stickers and tattoos can easily sway the opinions of people who sit on juries and judge your behavior.

K9 handlers and supporters argue that the sayings and images should be taken lightheartedly and at worst, just dark cop humor. Violence is simply an inherit part of the roles that the patrol dogs provide in real life situations where violence is met with violence to enforce the laws, some might argue. One side argues that the K9 aggression is a de-escalation method, and the shirts warn of the known consequences of committing criminal violence upon our citizens. Civil rights advocates call them a representation of a “brutality culture” and a promotion to glorify excessive force with police dogs.

I’m a retired police officer with more than 3 decades of police dog experience. Make me understand your thinking behind the shirts, stickers and tattoos. Be prepared, learn to articulate your thoughts, your opinions and your decisions.

As an expert witness who has read thousands of police reports and supporting documents in criminal and civil cases dealing with law enforcement canine apprehensions and use of force, I’m able to see how plaintiff’s attorneys and experts view and opine on the actions of canine handlers during deployments.

In this blog series I’ll share some of these ideas and opinions which lend themselves to supporting their assertions of the Fourth Amendment infringements on behalf of their clients from my personal experiences defending the actions of law enforcement canine handlers.

THE RELEASE FROM THE BITE- Plaintiffs often list the technique law enforcement canine handlers perform to cause their dog to release from the bite on the suspect/plaintiff. I’m seeing more cases where handlers use the “breaker bar”. While there are many other things written into the complaints, I’ll just focus on this one.

1)     The plaintiff’s complaint to the courts will often be that the use of the breaker bar was a requirement just to get the canine to release the bite, thus causing the bite to continue while the technique was applied.

2)     The plaintiff’s experts will sometimes opine that the use of the breaker bar is an admission that the handler has no verbal control over their canine and is forced to use the breaker bar as the only way to get the canine to release.

3)     The plaintiff’s experts will sometimes opine that the use of the breaker bar causes the canine to bite harder and shake their heads violently, which caused more pain and physical damage to the flesh of the plaintiff/suspect.

Many times, video footage of the apprehensions are used by the plaintiff’s experts in support of their opinions, but “there’s always more than one way to look at it”.

Good report writing by canine handlers can support their actions when using force to make and arrest. Providing the readers of these reports with your thoughts before and during canine deployments can help build a clear foundation when the camera footage is watched. These aren’t just random thoughts, but rather the details of how and what information you received and how it supported your decision to use the canine as use of force to apprehend.

To further this process of explaining what led to you using the canine, it can also be helpful to document in your report what information moved you to release the dog from the bite when you did and why you believe dusing the breaker bar was the most appropriate method.

Here are some ideas for documenting in your police reportswhy you used the breaker bar.

1)     Your training with the canine on different methods for the release might help support the use of the breaker bar.

a.     You’ve trained with the verbal command(s) forthe dog to release.

b.    You’ve trained with the “lift off" where the dog is held by the collar with pressure on the dog’s neck to restrict breathing.

c.     You’ve trained with the breaker bar.

2)     Have you had experiences with all these types of bite release techniques in various training scenarios which give you an idea ofhow the dog will react when each is applied?

a.     Have you been trained in various situations that have helped you understand that physical control of the canine up close, including holding his collar with your hand might be the best option when considering the safety of others and the suspect during the release from the bite? Have you been trained or have you learned through other experiences that canines that are in a high state of aggressive arousal might mistakenly bite again when removed from the bite?

b.    Would those experiences and training make physically holding the canine’s collar while applying the breaker bar make you know that it’s the most effective for you canine and the safest for the suspect to prevent unintentional re-bites?

“The totality of the circumstances” isn’t a phrase to take likely, it should be the reason you pause to think clearly before deploying your canine and the reason you pause again when you start formulating your thoughts about how to write your police reports. Good police reports will have clarity and move with a purpose to progress the ideas for your actions. It should be clear to the readers of your report that you understand the law and the policies that govern your lawful actions and give you authority. Those actions should be supported by the facts and circumstances that were known to you, and which helped you to make the decision about using the canine as a use offorce and then to choose the breaker bar as the technique for this incident.

As an expert witness who has read thousands of police reports and supporting documents in criminal and civil cases dealing with law enforcement canine apprehensions and use of force, I’m able to see how plaintiff’s attorneys and experts view and opine on the actions of canine handlers during deployments.

In this blog series I’ll share some of these ideas and opinions which lend themselves to supporting their assertions of the Fourth Amendment infringements on behalf of their clients from my personal experiences defending the actions of law enforcement canine handlers.

Many times, canine handlers will be questioned during depositions about the “time on bite” and be asked to explain why body camera video footage appears to show a complaint and surrendering suspect who’s still being held by a police canine. Does your police report make me understand WHY and does it comport with the videos?

It’s important to have the answers both in your written police report and be able to verbally articulate the facts that support not removing the police dog from the bite from a suspect who appears to be compliant in videos.

What you knew about the suspect, his crimes, his criminal history, his emotional history, his current emotional condition, and his current capacity or potential to escape, fight, resist, or otherwise place officers and others in imminent danger are things that you might consider important for the readers of your report to understand and to make sense of an incident that might not at first glance.

You cannot gloss over this concern nor paint it with the broad stroke of a “catch-all” phrase or idea. For example, we cannot simply write in each incident that “The dog was removed from the bite after he was handcuffed” OR “I left the canine on the bite for fear that he would injure us (officers) or escape into the neighborhood where he would be an imminent threat to citizens”. The details must support this idea and without them, your actions can be visually overwhelming and seemingly outside of the laws and your department’s General Orders.

Our society affords law enforcement officers the power to use force to make arrests, but it holds us accountable to being reasonable with uses of force and so it is expected of us to be educated, well informed and be able to articulate our actions so that we make them understand why.

Here’s a comparison example of how the circumstances and facts of an incident guide the courts in determining whether an officer is justified in their use of force with their police canines.

Here’s two different court cases with similarities but clear and distinguishable differences in the circumstances. In both cases, a police dog was used to bite a suspect, but the circumstances differ enough that they can help show the contrast between a justified use of force and one that wasn’t.

Research these two cases, Preister v. City of Riviera Beach and Crenshaw v. Lister. You’ll see from reading them that the totality of the circumstances helped support the time on the bite in the Crenshaw v. Lister case. Whereas the Preister v. City of Riviera Beach case fell short in proving the time on the bite was a proper use of force.