Modern interpretations of
the Fourth Amendment have led to some very interesting decisions and
perhaps unexpected application of those decisions (recitation of
Miranda rights, search incident to arrest, "grabbable area." ) Then there are the "canine sniff" cases,
arising out of the increasing use of dogs to demonstrate probable
cause in order to conduct a search that would otherwise not be permitted. A frustrated police officer wishing to conduct a
search of a car, for example, can apply to a federal judge for a search warrant, or
call in a K-9 unit and the dog, if it "alerts," in essence, gives permission to
search. Surprising no one, the Supreme Court unanimously upheld the practice.
In this case, the dog
had a history of false alerts with this defendant. This might seem to be a problem, but not to worry. Since he alerted, he must be right.
A well-trained drug-detection dog should alert to such odors; his response to them might appear a mistake, but in fact is not. See n. 2.
Note 2: ...when a detector dog responds and no drug or explosive is found, do not assume the dog has made an error.
For that reason, evidence
of a dog’s satisfactory performance in a certification or training
program can itself
provide sufficient reason to trust his alert. If
a bona fide
organization has certified a dog after testing his
reliability
in a controlled setting, a court can presume (subject to
any
conflicting evidence offered) that the dog’s alert provides
probable cause to search.
By Culture of Truth
