BOAT SNIFFS:
Summary:
If you have authority to hail and board a boat, your dog may go with you and conduct a canine sniff.
1) United States v Montoya de Hernandez (473 U. S. 531 (1985) U. S. Supreme Court
Consistent with Congress’ power to protect the nation by stopping and examining persons entering this country, the Fourth Amendment’s balance of reasonableness is qualitatively different at the international border than in the interior. Routine searches of persons and effects of entrants are not subject to any requirement of reasonable suspicion, probable cause or warrant.
Automotive travelers may be stopped at fixed checkpoints near the border without individualized suspicion, even if the stop is based largely on ethnicity, and boats on inland waters with ready access to the sea may be hailed and boarded with no suspicion whatsoever.
Expectation of privacy at an international border is less than in the interior.
2) United States v Todhunter (297 F. 3d 886 (2002) Ninth Circuit
Even without suspicion, the United States Coast Guard had the right to board a vessel in navigable waters to ascertain that the vessel was complying with federal laws.
In this case, the suspect acknowledged the presence of contraband and consented to a search of his vessel. He claimed his consent was tainted and involuntary by the threat to bring a police dog on board.
Since a canine sniff is not a search, officers would have been justified in conducting a canine sniff of the vessel without asking for consent. Therefore, the lawful threat to employ a canine sniff did not make the suspect ’s consent involuntary.