Will Supreme Court turn up its nose at dog sniffs?

[slimvictor]

Two dogs, a chocolate Labrador retriever named Franky and a German shepherd named Aldo, should have their day at the U.S. Supreme Court.

The court is scheduled on Wednesday to hear Florida's appeal of two decisions by that state's highest court that found the detection of drugs by trained police dogs had violated the constitutional ban on unreasonable searches and seizures under the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

These arguments involve distinctly different issues: whether a dog can sniff outside a home without a warrant, and how qualified a dog must be to do a legitimate sniff.

They give the Supreme Court a chance to extend, or limit, prior decisions giving police a long leash to use dogs, including for suitcases at airports and cars stopped at checkpoints.

"If the court vindicates the ability of police to use dogs without probable cause, and that a sniff outside a car justifies searching that car, it could enhance their ability to use dogs for law enforcement," said Richard Garnett, a University of Notre Dame law professor and clerk for former Chief Justice William Rehnquist.

Like others in law enforcement, Florida maintains that dog "alerts" are not searches because they uncover illegal activities that deserve no privacy protection.

The retired Justice David Souter mocked that idea in a dissent from a 2005 pro-sniff decision, saying it supposes that a trained canine becomes an "infallible dog" that never errs.

At least 23 U.S. states joined each of Florida's appeals, calling drug-detecting dogs "essential weapons" at the forefront of efforts to stop illegal drug production and sales.

The Supreme Court is often their ally in search cases, typically siding with the police.

SANCTITY OF THE HOME

One of Wednesday's cases, Florida v. Jardines, concerns a December 5, 2006, search outside Joelis Jardines' home near Miami.

A "crime stopper" had tipped police that marijuana was growing inside. Relying on that tip, a detective, joined by Franky, approached. Trained to find the strongest odor, Franky went to the front door, sniffed the base, and sat down.

That was the alert his handlers were looking for. After obtaining a search warrant, police found marijuana plants inside the home. Jardines was arrested for possessing more than 25 pounds of marijuana, and stealing the electricity to grow it.

In voiding the search, Florida's highest court called Franky's sniff an "unreasonable government intrusion into the sanctity of the home." There, it said, the expectation of privacy was much greater than in a car or an airport.

(...)

TELLTALE NERVES

Wednesday's other case, Florida v. Harris, involves a search not of a house, but of Clayton Harris' pickup truck.

An officer pulled over Harris near Bristol, Florida, in the state's panhandle, on June 24, 2006, after seeing that the truck had an expired tag. An open beer can lay in the cup holder.

Nervous, shaking and breathing rapidly, Harris would not let the officer search his truck. Out came Aldo, who was led around the truck for a "free air sniff."

Near the driver's door handle, Aldo gave his alert, becoming excited and then sitting down. The officer then searched the truck's interior, and found 200 pseudoephedrine pills and 8,000 matches, which are ingredients for methamphetamine.

Harris pleaded no contest, but he got a reprieve. The Florida Supreme Court said the state did not show Aldo's reliability as a drug detector with evidence of his training, certification and performance, and his handler's experience.

By comparison, Franky had no such problems, according to court papers. At the time of Jardines' search, he had made 399 positive alerts. The result: seizures of roughly one ton of marijuana and 34 pounds of cocaine and heroin.


cont at
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/10/28/us-usa-court-dog-sniffs-idUSBRE89R06720121028

 

[23536]

I am obviously very much against the drug war, but the molecules the dogs' noses detect are outside the home.

 

[cj]

I am obviously very much against the drug war, but the molecules the dogs' noses detect are outside the home.

O fair enough but the front poarch is still private property. If they want to snif out by the street thats one thing but coming up to my door is quite another.

 

[country bird]

I am obviously very much against the drug war, but the molecules the dogs' noses detect are outside the home.

If that's the case, how does this say anything about the inside of the house?

 

[f33lg00d]

Dogs give false positives the majority of the time, just a tool to violate our rights.

 

[brutus]

Dogs give false positives the majority of the time, just a tool to violate our rights.

Source?

 

[23536]

Source?

There was a recent Australian study that found that dogs have a 20% success rate.

http://www.bluelight.ru/vb/threads/...t-wrong-four-out-of-five-times?highlight=dogs

 

[Celtic Cthulu]

The molecules may be outside but the dog shouldn't be allowed on the property in the first place without a warrant. If the dog can smell it from the street then that'd be a legal reason to obtain a warrant I guess.

 

[23536]

The molecules may be outside but the dog shouldn't be allowed on the property in the first place without a warrant. If the dog can smell it from the street then that'd be a legal reason to obtain a warrant I guess.

The Florida case is about an apartment. They had the dog sniffing around in the common hallway.

That would be pretty scary if cops would all of a sudden be allowed to take a dog into an apartment building and sniff everyone's doorway, and raid every apartment the dog alerts for.

 

[slimvictor]

Some info on dog alerts:

This article says that a Chicago Tribune investigation showed that 56% of dog alerts did not turn out to reveal any drugs. However, for Hispanic drivers, that rate was 73%

This excellent article argues that dogs respond to their handlers more than anything else.

Here is a statistical analysis done by a Univ. N.C. professor that shows that dog alerts are not reliable.

This article (admittedly in a biased source, NORML), describes a UC Davis study:

The researchers took 18 drug dog teams to a church, where it is likely no drugs or explosives had ever been placed in the past. The cops were told there might be up to three target scents in any one of four rooms. If they saw a piece of red construction paper in the room, that indicated where a target scent was placed.

The first room was left untouched. The second room had a piece of red construction paper on a cabinet. The third room had two sausages and two tennis balls placed as decoys. The fourth room had the decoy scents and the red paper. However, none of the rooms had any drugs or explosives.

There shouldn’t have been any alerts, but, in fact, handlers indicated their dog had alerted in every room. There were more alerts in rooms with red paper (which piques the cop’s interest) and no corresponding increase in rooms with sausages and tennis balls (which would pique a dog’s interest).