BUS & BUS DEPOT SNIFFS:
Summary:
Baggage Search:
Checked Baggage:
Sniff of checked baggage is not a search. Movement of checked baggage to facilitate a canine sniff is allowed.
Carry-on Baggage:
In order for police officers to briefly detain carry-on baggage for a canine sniff, they must have either consent or reasonable suspicion supported by articulable objective facts that the baggage contains drugs.
Drug courier profile, without more, does not create reasonable suspicion.
Failure to consent to search cannot form any part of basis for reasonable suspicion.
After a trained narcotics dog positive alert to baggage for narcotics, officers have probable cause to seize baggage and obtain search warrant.
Removal of carry-on luggage from the overhead baggage area to facilitate a canine sniff, is not a search.
The courts are divided on the issue of pushing on sides of an object to expel air from inside in an effort to smell contents. The latest ruling states that this action is a search.
You cannot “physically manipulate” carry-on luggage to feel the bag in an exploratory manner.
United States v Guapi (144 F. 3d 1393 (1998) Eleventh Circuit
When talking with bus passengers inside a bus, officers should inform passengers they can refuse consent of carry-on luggage or that the passengers can simply leave the bus with their luggage. (SEE UNITED STATES v DRAYTON)
A) United States v Fulero (498 F. 2d 748 (1974) District of Columbia Circuit
Actions of drug sniffing dog found to be consistently reliable furnished probable cause for issuance of warrant for search of footlockers at bus depot.
Action of officers in allowing drug-sniffing dog to sniff air around footlockers in bus depot was not unconstitutional.
B) United States v Viera (644 F. 2d 509 (1981) Fifth Circuit
Use of dogs to sniff exteriors of suitcases outside a bus, did not constitute a search, and the light press of hands along the outside of the case was not intrusive.
C) Florida v Bostick (501 U.S. 429 (1991) U.S. Supreme Court
Police officer’s request that bus passenger consent to search of luggage, was not a seizure under the Fourth Amendment.
The appropriate inquiry in such a situation is whether a reasonable person would feel free to decline officer’s request or otherwise terminate the encounter.
D) United States v Glover (957 F. 2d 1004 (1992) Second Circuit
Officers who had reasonable suspicion that defendant possessed narcotics, based upon defendant’s conduct after exiting bus, did not exceed permissible scope of investigatory detention by detaining defendant with his bags in security office for approximately 30 minutes to verify his identification and to await arrival of narcotics dog. Defendant was told he was free to leave and instead chose to stay.
Officer’s warrantless seizure of contraband from defendant’s bags following narcotics dog’s positive sniff test during investigatory detention at bus terminal was proper, where defendant voluntarily consented to search.
E) United States v Harvey (961 F. 2d 1361 (1992) Eighth Circuit
Canine sniff of luggage on bus was not a search.
Initial removal of bus passengers’ luggage from overhead baggage area to facilitate canine sniff was not a seizure or search.
F) United States v Graham (982 F. 2d 273 (1992) Eighth Circuit
Removal of suitcase from overhead luggage rack to aisle of bus to facilitate a dog sniff was not a seizure.
G) United States v McFarley (991 F. 2d 1188 (1993) Fourth Circuit
Police must have reasonable suspicion to justify brief stop of person and detention of luggage for purpose of conducting a dog sniff, although the dog sniff itself is not a search.
Detention of defendant’s luggage for 38 minutes in order to subject it to a dog sniff did not elevate this investigatory stop into an arrest.
H) United States v O’Neal (17 F. 3d 239 (1994) Eighth Circuit
Without reasonable suspicion, officers may not even temporarily seize a person or his luggage. Officers are required to have more than a hunch that a suspect is carrying drugs.
Voluntary statement admitting to police officer that one’s bag contains drugs is probable cause for a search.
The suspect was at a bus depot when officers seized his carry-on bag for a canine sniff test. An officer asked the suspect if there were drugs in the bag and the suspect said yes. After the dog alerted to the bag, the suspect was arrested and a search warrant was obtained for the bag.
I) United States v Guzman (75 F. 3d 1090 (1996) Sixth Circuit
Defendant had no reasonable expectation of privacy to the airspace surrounding carry-on luggage, when it was on an open overhead luggage rack of a commercial bus.
J) United States v Gant (112 F. 3d 239 (1997) Sixth Circuit
Exposure of defendant’s bag, that was taken down from overhead compartment of passenger bus, to inspection by drug sniffing dog did not constitute a search.
Moving of defendant’s bag from overhead compartment of passenger bus to seat did not constitute a seizure.
K) United States v Garzon (119 F. 3d 1446 (1997) Tenth Circuit
Defendant bus passenger did not “abandon” his backpacks when he left them on a bus during a layover.
Officer’s orders for all passengers to disembark bus during layover with all their personal belongings and to proceed past drug sniffing dog were unlawful.
Defendant cannot abandon his property by refusing to comply with unlawful order.
L) United States v Tugwell (125 F. 3d 600 (1997) Eighth Circuit
Officers conducted a canine sniff of checked luggage on a Greyhound bus. The dog had a positive canine alert on one suitcase.
The defendant abandoned his suitcase by abruptly departing the bus station after witnessing the dog alert to the suitcase.
Officers could then open the suitcase without a warrant.
M) United States v Nicholson (144 F. 3d 632 (1998) Tenth Circuit
Canine sniff is not a search.
Officer conducted a search when without reasonable suspicion or probable cause, removed defendant’s carry-on bag from overhead rack of bus and then manipulated bag by pressing its sides with his hands.
N) United States v Ward (144 F. 3d 1024 (1998) Seventh Circuit
Defendant’s bag was not seized when officer handled and removed bag from bus’ luggage compartment.
Defendant’s bag was seized when after removing the bag from the luggage compartment, the officer then decided to hold the bag for a canine sniff, due to the lack of a narcotics dog at the bus station and the bus’ imminent departure.
(Officers ended up with reasonable suspicion and abandonment, when no bus passenger claimed the bag.)
O) United States v Stephens (206 F. 3d 914 (2000) Ninth Circuit
The defendant was seized rendering his abandonment of a bag involuntarily, when officers boarded a bus and:
• Informed passengers that they were free to leave;
• Officers did not inform passengers they could remain, but decline to answer officer’s questions;
• An officer guarded the bus door;
• Officers used the P.A. system on the bus;
• And officers singled out the defendant by questioning him first.
P) Bond v United States (529 U.S. 334, 146 L. Ed. 2d 365 (2000) U.S. Supreme Court
“Physical Manipulation” of carry-on luggage violated the defendant’s reasonable expectation of privacy.
When a bus passenger places a bag in an overhead bin, he expects that other passengers or bus employees may move it for one reason or another. Thus, a bus passenger clearly expects that his bag may be handled. He does not expect that other passengers or bus employees will, as a matter of course, feel the bag in an exploratory manner. Therefore, physical manipulation of the defendant’s bag violated the Fourth Amendment.
Q) United States v Drayton (153 L Ed 2d 242 (2002) U. S. Supreme Court
The Fourth Amendment permits officers to approach passengers on a bus at random to ask questions and to request their consent to searches, provided a reasonable person would understand that he is free to refuse.
Officers do not need to advise bus passengers during these encounters of their right to refuse to cooperate.
R) United States v Garcia-Garcia (319 F. 3d 726 (2003) Fifth Circuit
Where border patrol agents wish to employ a drug sniffing dog at an immigration stop, they may do so only if it does not lengthen the stop beyond the time necessary to verify the immigration status of the vehicle’s passengers.
Drug sniffing dog’s alert to the undercarriage of a bus at the checkpoint provided probable cause to search the bus, but did not automatically provide probable cause to search the passengers.
Drug dog’s alert in the aisle of the bus provided reasonable suspicion the passenger seated where the dog alerted possessed the drugs that the dog sensed, and thus, the dog’s sniff and contact search when it indicated to the passenger by crawling under his seat and sniffing him more closely, and touching its nose to the passenger’s shoes and lower leg, was reasonable.
S) United States v Reyes (349 F. 3d 219 (2003) Fifth Circuit
Any seizure that occurred when bus driver, at request of border control agent, requested that passengers exit bus so that agent could inspect bus, was reasonable, inasmuch as dog’s alert to passenger compartment of bus constituted probable cause for canine search, and agent complied with Border Patrol policy in requiring passengers to exit bus.
Non-contact dog sniff of passenger, after dog alerted to passenger compartment of bus, and as all passengers exited bus at border agent’s request, was not a search, where dog was four to five feet away from passenger when sniff occurred, and agent did not intend to have dog sniff passengers as they exited the bus, but instead was waiting with dog with intention of putting dog inside bus after passengers exited.
Border agent had reasonable suspicion to briefly detain passenger after he exited the bus, where dog alerted to passenger as he exited bus.
Border agent had reasonable belief that the passenger might be armed and dangerous, as required for limited search of passenger for weapons, where dog alerted to passenger, agent knew, based on his experience and training, that weapons accompanied narcotics.