Sign up to save your podcasts
Or
Share Police Drug Dog Case Law Summary
Share to email
Share to Facebook
Share to X
Share to email
Share to Facebook
Share to X
Or
Police Drug Dog Case Law Summary
I present a police dog case law summary. The drug dog has become one of law enforcements most powerful tools.
However, we are best served by remembering that this tool, like all other tools, is not perfect.
Police Dog Case Law Summary
The Supreme Court Cases
The law on police dog drug sniffs contains three foundation cases from the United States Supreme Court. See my prior posts on police drug dogs. Click Here & Click Here.
Caballes
It all begins with Illinois v. Caballes, 543 U.S. 405 (2005):
* Police Dog Drug Sniffs are Not Searches* Practical Limits Remain* Not That Many K-9 Units* Police Can Not Cause an Undue Delay
This case threatened to blow this issue wide open in favor of the police. It concluded that a police dog sniff was not a search. And we all know that things that are not searches are constitutional.
Facts: This was a traffic case. Car was stopped and driver ticketed for speeding. During the traffic stop, a canine unit appeared and a dog handler walked the dog around the car. The police dog alerted on the trunk. Police searched the trunk. Driver was arrested for trafficking cannabis. Everything happened in under 10 minutes.
Everything appeared wide open for police and their well trained four-legged sniffers.The court held:
“That any interest in possessing contraband cannot be deemed legitimate, ‘and thus, governmental conduct that only reveals the possession of contraband’ compromises no legitimate privacy interest.” United States v. Place, 462 U. S. 696 (1983).
The gist of the ruling is that a privacy interest (that society recognizes as reasonable) cannot exist for aromas that come from completely illegal contraband. “A dog sniff conducted during a concededly lawful traffic stop that reveals no information other than the location of a substance that no individual has any right to possess does not violate the Fourth Amendment.” Caballes, 543 U.S. 405 (2005).
You don’t have a privacy interest in illegal smells.
Caballes Still Set Limits, Can I go now?
Yet, even Caballes recognized limits on the use of police dogs during a traffic stop. (This limitation would also apply if drug sniffing dogs are used in DUI roadblocks).
The Court approvingly noted that the police officers detaining Caballes did not delay the traffic stop just so that the drug dog could finish the sniffing. This is important.
Had the Court found undue delay, the clear inference is that the case would have come out differently. This is what the court is talking about when it mentions a “prolonged” traffic stop. The Court wrote that:
A seizure that is justified solely by the interest in issuing a warning ticket to the driver can become unlawful if it is prolonged beyond the time reasonably required to complete that mission.
Caballes, 543 U.S. 405 (2005). If the police try to slow down the interaction with the driver so that ...
View all episodes
By Police NuggetsI present a police dog case law summary. The drug dog has become one of law enforcements most powerful tools.
However, we are best served by remembering that this tool, like all other tools, is not perfect.
Police Dog Case Law Summary
The Supreme Court Cases
The law on police dog drug sniffs contains three foundation cases from the United States Supreme Court. See my prior posts on police drug dogs. Click Here & Click Here.
Caballes
It all begins with Illinois v. Caballes, 543 U.S. 405 (2005):
* Police Dog Drug Sniffs are Not Searches* Practical Limits Remain* Not That Many K-9 Units* Police Can Not Cause an Undue Delay
This case threatened to blow this issue wide open in favor of the police. It concluded that a police dog sniff was not a search. And we all know that things that are not searches are constitutional.
Facts: This was a traffic case. Car was stopped and driver ticketed for speeding. During the traffic stop, a canine unit appeared and a dog handler walked the dog around the car. The police dog alerted on the trunk. Police searched the trunk. Driver was arrested for trafficking cannabis. Everything happened in under 10 minutes.
Everything appeared wide open for police and their well trained four-legged sniffers.The court held:
“That any interest in possessing contraband cannot be deemed legitimate, ‘and thus, governmental conduct that only reveals the possession of contraband’ compromises no legitimate privacy interest.” United States v. Place, 462 U. S. 696 (1983).
The gist of the ruling is that a privacy interest (that society recognizes as reasonable) cannot exist for aromas that come from completely illegal contraband. “A dog sniff conducted during a concededly lawful traffic stop that reveals no information other than the location of a substance that no individual has any right to possess does not violate the Fourth Amendment.” Caballes, 543 U.S. 405 (2005).
You don’t have a privacy interest in illegal smells.
Caballes Still Set Limits, Can I go now?
Yet, even Caballes recognized limits on the use of police dogs during a traffic stop. (This limitation would also apply if drug sniffing dogs are used in DUI roadblocks).
The Court approvingly noted that the police officers detaining Caballes did not delay the traffic stop just so that the drug dog could finish the sniffing. This is important.
Had the Court found undue delay, the clear inference is that the case would have come out differently. This is what the court is talking about when it mentions a “prolonged” traffic stop. The Court wrote that:
A seizure that is justified solely by the interest in issuing a warning ticket to the driver can become unlawful if it is prolonged beyond the time reasonably required to complete that mission.
Caballes, 543 U.S. 405 (2005). If the police try to slow down the interaction with the driver so that ...