Also known as: canine sniffs · canine-sniff · canine-sniffs · dog sniff · K9 sniff · drug dog search
Written by attorneys — see sources below.
A limited investigative technique in which a trained narcotics-detection dog sniffs the exterior of a vehicle or container. The technique discloses only the presence or absence of contraband and therefore does not constitute a search under the Fourth Amendment when performed during a lawful detention that is not extended beyond the time required to complete the original mission.
Luis, a long-haul truck driver for Apex Manufacturing, stopped at a state weigh station. Inspector Harris lawfully directed Luis to a lane for a routine safety inspection. While Harris checked Luis's paperwork, Officer Reed walked her trained narcotics dog around the trailer. The sniff took under a minute, ended before Harris finished, the dog alerted, and drugs were found.
Officers developed reasonable suspicion that a traveler's luggage contained narcotics at an airport. They detained the bag briefly and exposed it to a trained narcotics-detection dog. The dog alerted, disclosing only the presence or absence of contraband without opening the luggage or revealing other contents.
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 caseOfficers at a highway checkpoint conducted a lawful vehicle stop. A narcotics dog walked the exterior of the stopped car and alerted. The alert supplied probable cause for a further search under the automobile exception.
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 canine sniff of a vehicle's exterior during a lawful traffic stop is not a search when it does not prolong the stop. Officers therefore need no separate reasonable suspicion of drug activity to deploy the dog so long as the sniff occurs while they are still handling the original traffic matter.
Supporting sources
A canine sniff becomes unlawful when officers prolong an otherwise-completed traffic stop, even briefly, to conduct the sniff without independent reasonable suspicion. The critical question is whether the dog sniff adds time to the stop beyond what is needed to handle the traffic violation.
Supporting sources
Yes. When the government shows that a narcotics detection dog is properly trained and currently certified, the dog's alert ordinarily suffices to establish probable cause to search the vehicle under the automobile exception, absent specific evidence undermining the dog's reliability.
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…