Impact of SCOTUS narcotic dog cases on New York drug charges

May 04, 2013

Impact of SCOTUS narcotic dog cases on New York drug charges

Article provided by D. Jen Brown, Esq. Attorney at Law
Visit us at http://www.djenbrownesq.com/

The Supreme Court of the United States, or SCOTUS, recently ruled on two drug-sniffing dog cases. The first case, Florida v. Harris, involved the question of whether a narcotics dog can search a vehicle without the owner's consent while the second case, Florida v. Jardines, asked whether the dog could be used to search a person's curtilage, or the area immediately surrounding their home.

Rulings issued by SCOTUS have an impact on how law is administered across the country. As a result, these rulings will impact federal drug charges in New York.

Background of the cases

Both cases focus on the fundamental protections provided for in the Fourth Amendment against unreasonable searches and seizures.

In the first case, a police officer pulled over a car due to an expired license. During the stop, he noticed the driver had an open container of alcohol in the cup holder. He requested permission to search the vehicle and was denied.

The officer, part of a canine unit, brought out his drug-sniffing dog Aldo to conduct a "free air sniff" search of the car. During the search, the dog alerted to the presence of drugs. The officer used this alert as cause to conduct a more thorough search. During the search, the officer found the ingredients to make methamphetamine and arrested the driver.

The driver argued the search was illegal since it was based primarily on the dog's alert. He argued the dog's alert was faulty since the dog had many false positive alerts in the field. The court disagreed. Instead, they found that as long as the dog received training and was certified, the alert was sufficient.

The second case began with an anonymous tip that homeowners were growing marijuana. Based on this tip, an officer brought a drug-sniffing dog to the property and conducted a similar "free air sniff" search of the home's front porch. This portion of the home qualifies within the legal term curtilage. Curtilage is the area immediately surrounding the home. During the search, the dog alerted to the presence of drugs. Based on this alert, the court issued a warrant for a search of the home. During the search of the home, officers found marijuana and issued drug charges against the homeowners.

The homeowners argued the search was a violation of their Fourth Amendment protections. The court found that the officer trespassed on private property by conducting the search on the home's porch and violated these rights. Since the initial search was illegal, the home search was also illegal. As a result, the evidence found during the search was not allowed in court.

Impact in New York

These holdings will impact New York criminal drug charges. New York currently employs over sixty canine units, with over half specializing in narcotics detection. Officers within these units will be required to follow the same rules. It is also important to note that evidence gathered improperly can be challenged and may ultimately be dismissed. If a canine unit is not properly trained and certified, or is used improperly, any evidence that results from the search may be dismissed.

Navigating the intricacies of these rules can be difficult. If you or a loved one is charged with a drug crime it is important to contact an experienced criminal defense attorney to better ensure your legal rights are protected.