What are the grounds for re-opening a suppression hearing?

Last updated on: May 22, 2020
Can a demonstration performed by an expert witness showing that a drug-detecting dog cannot detect narcotics through transmission fluid be grounds for reopening a suppression hearing involving law enforcement officers who tesified to the contrary? My case is cited at 133 F3d 1394. I was given three LIFE sentences in federal court in 1996, but former POTUS granted my petition for commutation of sentence on May 5, 2016. In my case, FHP Troopers testified falsely, stating that their K-9 alerted to two safes that were pulled out of my rental car. I was present at the scene and heard the K-9 handler state to the other, "He[K-9] didn't hit." But they busted open both safes without probable cause anyway. The removal of the safes from the trunk of the rental car before the K-9 was actively pursued should have resulted in the necessity of a search warrant if the K-9 would have alerted to the portable container, but the court accepted the USA's argument that the inevitable discovery doctrine applied. Although I believe there was a break in the causal chain in my case, this was the only string that connects me to the conviction. If I can show that a trained K-9 can not alert to narcotics submerged in transmission fluid--or other petroleum products--the credibility of the troopers could be called into question, quite possibly causing the string to pop and my illegal conviction would be overturned.
Please sign in to answer this question.