CANINE APPLICATION TO SEARCH AND SEIZURE

CANINE APPLICATION TO SEARCH AND SEIZURE:

SUMMARY:

A canine sniff of property is not a search.

A) United States v Place (462 U.S. 696 (1983) U. S. Supreme Court

Exposure of traveler's luggage, which was located in a public place, to a trained narcotics detection dog for sniffing purposes did not constitute a "search" for Fourth Amendment purposes.

The canine sniff discloses only the presence or absence of narcotics, a contraband item.

The canine sniff does not expose noncontraband items that otherwise would remain hidden from public view.

B) Illinois v Caballes (125 S. Ct. 834 (2005) U.S. Supreme Court

Dog sniff conducted during a lawful traffic stop, that reveals no information other than location of contraband that no individual has any right to possess, does not violate the Fourth Amendment.

Use of a well trained narcotics detection dog, one that does not expose noncontraband items that otherwise would remain hidden from public view, during lawful traffic stop does not violate the Fourth Amendment.

Where lawful traffic stop was not extended beyond time necessary to issue warning ticket and to conduct ordinary inquiries incident to such a stop, another officer’s arrival at scene while stop was in progress and use of narcotics detection dog to sniff around the exterior of motorist’s vehicle does not have to be supported by some reasonable, articulable suspicion.

C) Horton v California (496 U.S. 128 (1990) U. S. Supreme Court

You or your dog must have a legal right to be in the place from which you are viewing / smelling the object.

D) Since a canine sniff is not a search, no reasonable suspicion, probable cause or consent is required to conduct that sniff.

E) This sniff applies to all property, such as cars, parcels, trains and luggage, etc.

Return to the Narcotics Legal Index

Return to the Home Page

Webmaster