SHould A K-9 Sniff Be Considered Probable Cause For A Search

Probable cause has been defined by the U.S. Supreme Court as “the belief by a reasonable and prudent officer that a crime has been committed or is about to be committed (some evidence should be presented to articulate this belief),” (United States v. Ross, 456 U.S. 798). In relation to searches, probable cause is very space specific. For example, let’s say an officer obtained probable cause to search someone’s house for some computers that were stolen. The officer (with a warrant) only has the right to search places where these computers could be stored, not medicine cabinets, drawers, or envelopes. A search is defined just that - a search of someone’s person or property (and for this purpose) without consent.

It is also accepted that police canines have been extensively trained in detecting narcotics in hidden and visible compartments and are much more reliable than humans at doing this. The canine handlers hav

As stated earlier the courts have ruled that a dog alerting on an item gives an officer reason to search that item. The problem I have is that the government obtained that reason for search, or probable cause, by sniffing, and in my opinion a sniff is a search, and it’s an illegal one. The police do not need any standard of proof to sniff the outside of the vehicle. They can actually do it whenever they want. They are therefore using the canine as a means to jump over the hurdle of probable cause, a hurdle that no police officer without a dog could jump in this sort situation. In essence, police have found a way to beat the intentions of our forefathers when they wrote the fourth amendment, cheating every citizen they come in contact with in this manner of their right to be protected from the intrusion of government.

Some of the different cases that have had ties to this issue are presented below along with very short summaries.

I believe that although the number of persons caught for trafficking and possessing narcotics would decrease tremendously, a police canine “sniff” should be considered a full search, and the Fourth Amendment prerequisites for that search should be adhered to. A simple scenario can be given to support my belief.

The first is of an innocent driver of a vehicle who is stopped for a traffic infraction by a member of the local police department’s K-9 unit. During the stop, as is very common, this officer walks his narcotic detection dog around the target vehicle. The dog detects a drug, and against the wishes of the driver, the stop turns into a search of the entire vehicle (including trunk and engine compartment). Unknown to the police officer or the driver of the vehicle, when the driver gave a ride to one his friends about thirty minutes prior to the stop, the friend had a bag of cocaine in his pocket. The old scent of this cocaine is what the dog is alerting on. After an hour and forty minutes and no narcotics being found in the car, the stop ends in a simple verbal warning to the driver. The problem is that in this search, probable cause as it is defined by the U.S. Constitution was never established. The search, however, is permitted by the courts because a dog alert is consid!

U.S. v. Joseph Noel Seals

Some topics in this essay:
Noel Seals, Fourth Amendment, David Wright, K-9 Site, United Ross, Police K-9, Court Appeals, Supreme Court, probable cause, probable cause search, cause search, considered search, dog alerting, establish probable, search conducted, establish probable cause, fourth amendment, , Joseph Noel, joseph noel seals, crime committed, police dog, it’s handler, sniff considered search, police dog’s sniff,