Also known as: dog sniff · canine sniff · canine sniffs · dog sniff search
Written by attorneys — see sources below.
An investigative technique in which a trained canine detects the odor of contraband from the exterior of a vehicle or container. The technique reveals only the presence or absence of illegal substances and therefore does not intrude on any legitimate privacy interest. When performed during a lawful detention and without adding time to that detention, the technique requires no separate justification such as reasonable suspicion or a warrant.
Destiny Davis was pulled over for a broken taillight. While the officer verified her license and registration, a second officer walked a trained narcotics dog around the exterior of the car. The dog alerted at the trunk without extending the stop. Officers then searched the trunk and found marijuana.
Dolores Diaz checked her suitcase at the airport. Officers with reasonable suspicion seized the bag and held it for ninety minutes before a dog could sniff it. The dog alerted and officers opened the suitcase. The extended seizure turned the brief investigative detention into an unreasonable one.
Respondent Raymond J. Place arrived at Miami International Airport on August 8, 1980, aboard a nonstop flight from New York City. Two DEA agents, alerted to his arrival, approached him in the baggage claim area after observing his behavior while purchasing a ticket. The agents requested his airline ticket and identification, which Place provided, and he consented to a search of his two checked suitcases. Because his flight was about to depart, the agents decided not to search the luggage at that time. Prompted by Place's remark that he recognized them as police, the agents examined the address tags on his luggage and discovered discrepancies. Further investigation showed that the addresses did not exist and that the telephone number belonged to a different address. The Miami agents relayed this information to DEA authorities in New York. At La Guardia Airport, two DEA agents approached Place after he claimed his bags. Place refused consent to a search of his luggage. The agents informed him they would take the luggage to obtain a search warrant, and Place declined to accompany them. The agents transported the bags to Kennedy Airport for a sniff test by a trained narcotics detection dog. Approximately 90 minutes after the seizure, the dog alerted positively to one bag. Due to the late Friday afternoon timing, the agents held the luggage until Monday, when they obtained a warrant and discovered 1,125 grams of cocaine inside. Place was indicted under 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). The District Court denied his motion to suppress, he pleaded guilty reserving the right to appeal, and the Court of Appeals reversed the conviction.
View caseDylan Duffy drove through a highway checkpoint aimed at intercepting drugs. Officers walked a narcotics dog around his car without individualized suspicion. The dog alerted and officers searched the vehicle. The program was held unconstitutional because its primary purpose was general crime control rather than roadway safety.
In August 1998, the city of Indianapolis began operating vehicle checkpoints on its roads with the aim of interdicting unlawful drugs. Between August and November of that year, the city conducted six such roadblocks, stopping 1,161 vehicles and arresting 104 motorists, of whom 55 were arrested for drug-related crimes and 49 for unrelated offenses. At each checkpoint, officers stopped a predetermined number of vehicles, typically 10 to 15, asked the driver a few questions, examined the vehicle's interior, and walked a narcotics-detection dog around the exterior. If evidence of a drug violation was detected, officers could search the car without consent; otherwise, they provided the driver with a flyer explaining the program and allowed the driver to proceed. The stops generally lasted two to three minutes. Respondents James Edmond and Joell Palmer were each stopped at a narcotics checkpoint in late September 1998. They filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana on behalf of themselves and a class of motorists, claiming the checkpoint program violated the Fourth Amendment. The District Court denied the motion for a preliminary injunction. The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reversed that decision. The Supreme Court granted certiorari to review the case.
View caseNo. When the sniff occurs while officers are still handling the original traffic mission and does not add time to the stop, it is not a search and needs no separate suspicion. The dog reveals only the presence or absence of contraband, an item in which there is no legitimate privacy interest.
Supporting sources
The prolongation converts the stop into an unlawful seizure. Officers may not extend the detention even briefly beyond the time needed to complete the traffic mission unless they have independent reasonable suspicion of criminal activity.
Supporting sources
Yes. Courts treat a reliable canine alert as sufficient probable cause under the automobile exception, allowing a warrantless search of the vehicle and its containers. The alert itself supplies the fair probability that contraband is present.
Supporting sources
The detention must remain brief. A ninety-minute hold exceeds the limited scope permitted by reasonable suspicion and becomes an unreasonable seizure even though the subsequent dog sniff itself is not a search.
Supporting sources
…possesses a privacy interest in the contents of personal luggage that is protected by the Fourth Amendment. Id. , at 13. A "canine sniff" by a well-trained narcotics detection dog, however, does not require opening the luggage. It does not expose noncontraband items that otherwise would remain hidden from public view, as…