Also known as: dog sniffs · dog sniffing · canine sniff · drug dog search
Written by attorneys — see sources below.
An investigative technique employing a trained narcotics-detection dog to examine the exterior of luggage or a vehicle. The technique reveals only the presence or absence of contraband and therefore does not constitute a search under the Fourth Amendment.
Daniel Diaz was pulled over for a broken taillight. While the officer verified the registration, a drug dog arrived and circled the car. The dog alerted at the trunk within the time required to complete the paperwork, leading to a search that uncovered marijuana. The sniff supplied no independent Fourth Amendment violation because it occurred without extending the stop.
Demetrius Douglas approached a checkpoint where officers directed every car to stop briefly. A narcotics dog walked around the exterior of his vehicle and alerted. Officers then searched the car and found cocaine. The sniff itself added no separate constitutional defect because it disclosed only contraband.
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 caseDaphne Doyle surrendered her suitcase at an airport counter. Officers with reasonable suspicion removed the bag and held it for ninety minutes before a dog arrived and alerted. The prolonged seizure of the luggage violated the Fourth Amendment even though the subsequent sniff revealed only contraband.
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 caseNo. A trained narcotics dog reveals only the presence or absence of contraband, so the sniff itself does not invade any legitimate privacy interest protected by the Fourth Amendment.
The sniff becomes unconstitutional when officers prolong the stop beyond the time needed to complete the original traffic mission without independent reasonable suspicion. Any added time converts the encounter into an unreasonable seizure.
Only briefly. A detention approaching ninety minutes exceeds the limited scope permitted by reasonable suspicion and becomes an unreasonable seizure even when the eventual sniff is not itself a search.
The alert can supply probable cause, but officers still must obtain a warrant or satisfy a recognized exception before opening the container. The sniff itself supplies no automatic right to search inside.
…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…