Supreme Court limits use of drug-sniffing dogs outside homes

April 24, 2013

Supreme Court limits use of drug-sniffing dogs outside homes

Article provided by Connell & Connell, LLC
Visit us at http://www.connell-connell.com

One of the recurring questions in criminal law is how far the Fourth Amendment goes. The amendment, which protects citizens and their houses, papers and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures by those acting on behalf of the government, is constantly being defined, expanded and limited by caselaw. As an example, a recent case before the Supreme Court questions how much protection does the Fourth Amendment grant to the area around a suspect's home.

Facts of the case

In the case, police officers and Drug Enforcement Administration agents were investigating drug crimes in Florida. The investigators received an anonymous tip that marijuana was being grown at a house. The officers went to the house and set up surveillance. After 15 minutes had passed, no one arrived or left the property.

Eventually an officer arrived with a drug-detecting dog. The officer with the dog went up to the house's front porch. Once the dog was on the porch, he sat down near the base of the door, which he was trained to do when he detected the presence of marijuana.

The dog's behavior was used as evidence to obtain a search warrant of the residence. When the police executed the search warrant, the occupant, was arrested as he tried to escape out the back door. The police found 179 marijuana plants, with an estimated value of $700,000, in the house.

At trial, the suspect's attorney argued that the marijuana evidence was inadmissible, because the police violated the suspect's Fourth Amendment rights when they brought the police dog on the property without a search warrant. Both the trial court and the Florida Supreme Court agreed that a violation had occurred and threw out the evidence against the suspect. The case was appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court to determine if the presence of the police dog on the property without a warrant constituted an illegal search.

In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that the use of the dog constituted a search, ruling that law enforcement should have first obtained a warrant before bringing the dog onto the property. The court ruled that the porch was clearly connected to the home, so it was in essence part of the home. As a result, the porch was entitled to receive to Fourth Amendment protections, the court ruled.

Consult an attorney

If you are accused of a drug crime, this case illustrates how in their zeal to make a bust, law enforcement will sometimes act in a manner that violates your constitutional rights. If you fail to assert your rights, it can severely weaken your defense.

If you have been charged with possession, distribution or trafficking of drugs, it is important to consult with an experienced criminal defense attorney to ensure that your rights are protected.