# drug sniffing dogs to go to court...



## Dainerra (Nov 14, 2003)

Will Supreme Court turn up its nose at drug-sniffing dogs? - Yahoo! News

Two dogs, a chocolate Labrador retriever named Franky and a German shepherd named Aldo, should have their day at the U.S. Supreme Court. The court is scheduled on Wednesday to hear Florida's appeal of two decisions by that state's highest court that found the detection of drugs by trained police dogs had violated the constitutional ban on unreasonable searches and seizures under the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
These arguments involve distinctly different issues: whether a dog can sniff outside a home without a warrant, and how qualified a dog must be to do a legitimate sniff.
They give the Supreme Court a chance to extend, or limit, prior decisions giving police a long leash to use dogs, including for suitcases at airports and cars stopped at checkpoints.
"If the court vindicates the ability of police to use dogs without probable cause, and that a sniff outside a car justifies searching that car, it could enhance their ability to use dogs for law enforcement," said Richard Garnett, a University of Notre Dame law professor and clerk for former Chief Justice William Rehnquist.
Like others in law enforcement, Florida maintains that dog "alerts" are not searches because they uncover illegal activities that deserve no privacy protection.
The retired Justice David Souter mocked that idea in a dissent from a 2005 pro-sniff decision, saying it supposes that a trained canine becomes an "infallible dog" that never errs.
At least 23 U.S. states joined each of Florida's appeals, calling drug-detecting dogs "essential weapons" at the forefront of efforts to stop illegal drug production and sales.
The Supreme Court is often their ally in search cases, typically siding with the police.
SANCTITY OF THE HOME
One of Wednesday's cases, Florida v. Jardines, concerns a December 5, 2006, search outside Joelis Jardines' home near Miami.
A "crime stopper" had tipped police that marijuana was growing inside. Relying on that tip, a detective, joined by Franky, approached. Trained to find the strongest odor, Franky went to the front door, sniffed the base, and sat down.
That was the alert his handlers were looking for. After obtaining a search warrant, police found marijuana plants inside the home. Jardines was arrested for possessing more than 25 pounds of marijuana, and stealing the electricity to grow it.
In voiding the search, Florida's highest court called Franky's sniff an "unreasonable government intrusion into the sanctity of the home." There, it said, the expectation of privacy was much greater than in a car or an airport.
The court also likened Franky to the heat-sensing thermal imagers that the U.S. Supreme Court, in a 2001 decision that cut across ideological lines, said could not without a warrant be used outside a home to detect marijuana growing inside.
Where the government uses a device "not in general public use" to uncover details about a home, "the surveillance is a 'search' and is presumptively unreasonable without a warrant," Justice Antonin Scalia then wrote for a 5-4 majority.
"Jardines is a line-drawing case: the question is can police use the dog at the front door," said Orin Kerr, a law professor at George Washington University and former clerk to Justice Anthony Kennedy. "If a warrant were needed, police would never use the dog at a house, because then they could just go inside."
TELLTALE NERVES
Wednesday's other case, Florida v. Harris, involves a search not of a house, but of Clayton Harris' pickup truck.
An officer pulled over Harris near Bristol, Florida, in the state's panhandle, on June 24, 2006, after seeing that the truck had an expired tag. An open beer can lay in the cup holder.
Nervous, shaking and breathing rapidly, Harris would not let the officer search his truck. Out came Aldo, who was led around the truck for a "free air sniff."
Near the driver's door handle, Aldo gave his alert, becoming excited and then sitting down. The officer then searched the truck's interior, and found 200 pseudoephedrine pills and 8,000 matches, which are ingredients for methamphetamine.
Harris pleaded no contest, but he got a reprieve. The Florida Supreme Court said the state did not show Aldo's reliability as a drug detector with evidence of his training, certification and performance, and his handler's experience.
By comparison, Franky had no such problems, according to court papers. At the time of Jardines' search, he had made 399 positive alerts. The result: seizures of roughly one ton of marijuana and 34 pounds of cocaine and heroin.
"The state's 'credentials alone' canine-reliability test is based on an overgeneralized assertion - that all trained or certified drug-detection dogs are reliable in the field," a group of 34 law professors said in a brief supporting Harris.
Regardless of how the court rules in both cases, police will go on using dogs for drug detection. The questions are when, and how.
Decisions in both cases are expected by the end of June.
The cases are Florida v. Jardines, U.S. Supreme Court, No. 11-564; and Florida v. Harris, U.S. Supreme Court, No. 11-817.


----------



## x0emiroxy0x (Nov 29, 2010)

I never know what to believe when something is posted on YAHOO. This story is ridiculous, but even worse are the ignorant comments on the story, condoning drug use.

If you don't have anything to hide, what is the problem with a dog sniffing your luggage at the airport? He might save your life from the person with a bomb in their luggage!

People are too crazy about unreasonable searches.....the police got tipped that the guy was growing marijuana, the dog scented it, and they got the bad guy.

Yes, it is possible for the cops to teach a dog to false alert, or pretend the dog alerted when it didn't-----but if the person doesn't have anything to hide, who CARES? I know some people on this board go nuts about anything involving police and will have a lot to say about this subject----but if the 'false' alerts are catching druggies....then GOOD!

I wish they would drug test people receiving welfare and social security too! 

My dad pays 50% of his income in taxes (He makes a lot and is an independent contractor)....my aunt that has been on drugs since the age of 14 (she is 55) gets 600 a month in welfare and she spends every penny on drugs and then sleeps in the streets or steals from people. How ironic that the money my dad works so hard for goes to wastes-of-life like her.

Wow...went off topic...but I really, really, really, HATE drugs and I think people that use them are a waste of space. There are so many people dying of cancer or in wheelchairs that would LOVE to have a strong body, but these druggies just kill themselves and throw away everything.


----------



## TommyB681 (Oct 19, 2012)

A police dog sniffing outside of an area (IMO) in no way violates any sort of constitutional right. As in both cases neither the dog nor officer entered the house or car without proper authority (the warrant in the house and the open container in the truck give authority to search the area). Also dogs are not error proof, nothing is. But they are vital an productive assests to law enforcement and should be utilized for the officers and the publics safety. Hopefully the outcome in these cases will be positive


----------



## Xeph (Jun 19, 2005)

> I wish they would drug test people receiving welfare and social security too!


Why? Because poor and disabled people are druggies? Pretty offensive.



> A police dog sniffing outside of an area (IMO) in no way violates any sort of constitutional right


Agreed


----------



## martemchik (Nov 23, 2010)

Constitutional rights are always a fun discussion...

We love seeing drug dealers get busted, we love seeing true criminals get sent to jail by our K9 officers. But the moment you watch a K9 walk around your neighborhood sniffing around your own private property, or your neighbor's private property you'll hear quite the uproar about illegal search and seizure. Or the day you get pulled over and an officer walks a dog by your car who sits there and then delays you for an extra half hour to an hour on your way to work while they do a complete search of your vehicle while you're yelling that there is nothing in there.

I'm all for criminals getting busted. I could care less if a police dog sniffs around a house that is growing something illegal and that provides the basis for a search warrant. But the problem is when law-abiding citizens start seeing search warrants because a neighbor calls in some sort of activity.

We get all up in arms over a police officer walking onto private property and shooting a dog because he "felt threatened." We get all up in arms over a dog going onto our property and the possibility of our dog hurting that dog and getting labeled "dangerous" for protecting its own property. I'm just stating that when it comes to private property...there are very fine lines that shouldn't be crossed and are protected by our constitution (this is coming from an Eastern European immigrant btw). And although I believe that law enforcement should be able to use any tool that is available to them in order to bust the baddies...these kinds of decisions have a huge trickle down on other things that might be considered not so bad.

Remember this...police officers are heroes when they do something right and good, but when they make a mistake they get way more criticism than is usually due (I can think of at least 5 threads over the last 3 months where "questionable" behavior by a police officer was completely ripped apart).

Btw...I think they will uphold the decisions already made. That "heat device" case was pretty big for the use of anything other than human senses and information for "probably cause."


----------



## llombardo (Dec 11, 2011)

TommyB681 said:


> A police dog sniffing outside of an area (IMO) in no way violates any sort of constitutional right. As in both cases neither the dog nor officer entered the house or car without proper authority (the warrant in the house and the open container in the truck give authority to search the area). Also dogs are not error proof, nothing is. But they are vital an productive assests to law enforcement and should be utilized for the officers and the publics safety. Hopefully the outcome in these cases will be positive


Is it true that if a police officer pulls over a car and the police officer believes something isn't right, that a dog can be brought in and do a very basic search that can legally lead to an arrest once the officer searches the car and finds drugs?


----------



## martemchik (Nov 23, 2010)

llombardo said:


> Is it true that if a police officer pulls over a car and the police officer believes something isn't right, that a dog can be brought in and do a very basic search that can legally lead to an arrest once the officer searches the car and finds drugs?


Yes...if the police officer after making the traffic violation doesn't have enough visual evidence to provide for a large enough reason to search the vehicle he can call in a K9 and if the K9 sniffs around the vehicle and indicates something is up, that gives the police officer the reasonable suspicion to do a complete search without a warrant and also make an arrest if anything is found.


----------



## llombardo (Dec 11, 2011)

martemchik said:


> Yes...if the police officer after making the traffic violation doesn't have enough visual evidence to provide for a large enough reason to search the vehicle he can call in a K9 and if the K9 sniffs around the vehicle and indicates something is up, that gives the police officer the reasonable suspicion to do a complete search without a warrant and also make an arrest if anything is found.


Thank you, that is what I thought!!


----------

