Also known as: dog sniff · dog sniffs · canine sniff · canine sniffs · dog sniff for contraband · canine sniff search · dog sniff doctrine
Written by attorneys — see sources below.
A law-enforcement investigative technique in which officers expose personal property or a vehicle to a trained narcotics-detection dog. The technique reveals only the presence or absence of contraband and therefore does not constitute a search under the Fourth Amendment when performed without prolonging a lawful detention.
Dwight Dorsey was pulled over for a broken taillight. While the officer verified the registration, a canine unit arrived and walked the dog around the car. The dog alerted at the trunk within the time required to complete the traffic citation. Officers opened the trunk and found marijuana. The sniff supplied probable cause for the search because it occurred without extending the stop.
Danielle Dixon arrived at the airport with a checked bag. Officers with reasonable suspicion seized the bag and held it for nearly two hours while awaiting a narcotics dog. The dog alerted and officers obtained a warrant. The prolonged detention of the bag violated the Fourth Amendment even though the subsequent sniff itself was not a search.
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 caseDerek Douglas drove through a city checkpoint set up to interdict drugs. Officers directed all vehicles to stop while a dog walked the line of cars. The dog alerted on Douglas's trunk. The checkpoint 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. A dog sniff conducted during a lawful traffic stop that does not prolong the stop beyond the time needed to address the traffic violation does not require reasonable suspicion of drug activity. The sniff reveals only the presence or absence of contraband in which there is no legitimate privacy interest.
Supporting sources
Detaining luggage for a dog sniff on reasonable suspicion must remain brief. A detention approaching ninety minutes exceeds the limited scope permitted by reasonable suspicion and becomes an unreasonable seizure even though the sniff itself is not a search.
Supporting sources
No. A trained narcotics dog's sniff of luggage in a public place is not a search because it discloses only the presence or absence of contraband and does not reveal other private information about lawful contents.
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…