United States Supreme Court to Hear Two Drug-Sniffing Dog Cases

December 06, 2012

United States Supreme Court to Hear Two Drug-Sniffing Dog Cases

US Supreme Court to Hear 2 Drug-Sniffing Dog Cases

During this term, the U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to hear two cases involving evidence discovered by drug-sniffing dogs. In both cases, the Florida Supreme Court ordered the evidence be suppressed. The Supreme Court will determine whether the evidence in these two instances was gathered in violation of the Fourth Amendment.

The Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution provides for, "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures." The amendment establishes that probable cause must exist to obtain a warrant to perform the search or seizure.

Florida v. Jardines

The first case arose in November 2006, when the police received information that Jardines' home was being used as a grow house. In December 2006, law enforcement officials went to the home, and one officer brought a drug-sniffing dog onto the front porch. The dog indicated it detected drugs. The police officer also believed he smelled marijuana and obtained a search warrant.

Upon entering the house, law enforcement officers discovered "numerous live marijuana plants," and arrested Jardines. Jardines faced drug trafficking charges that amounted to a first-degree felony.

After the case was heard by two lower courts, the Florida Supreme Court ruled that the evidence should be suppressed. The court found that the dog "sniff test" constituted a Fourth Amendment search, which meant the officers were required to have probable cause of wrongdoing before the sniff test could be used. The court held, "If government agents can conduct a dog 'sniff test' at a private residence without any prior evidentiary showing of wrongdoing, there is nothing to prevent the agents from applying the procedure in an arbitrary or discriminatory manner, or based on whim and fancy, at the home of any citizen."

Florida v. Harris

The second case arose when a police officer stopped Harris while he was driving, due to an expired license plate. The officer's drug-sniffing dog indicated he smelled drugs when standing by the driver's side door. As a result, the police officer searched the vehicle and uncovered products used to make methamphetamine.

In this case, the Florida Supreme Court held that the dog was not reliable and suppressed the evidence discovered in the search.

Should the Evidence from the "Sniff Tests" Be Suppressed?

The U.S. Supreme Court will hear arguments for both cases and determine whether the evidence obtained because of the dog sniff tests should have been suppressed. If the court determines the sniff tests do not qualify as a search under the Fourth Amendment, the practices used by these law enforcement officials could be used without any evidence of wrongdoing.

Some argue that such an allowance would result in unwarranted searches of people's private property. Experts point to the fact that although the dogs are trained to identify smells associated with certain drugs, their responses are not always accurate. Not only do the animals sometimes get it wrong, but the smells can also be confused with other legal substances that contain some of the same molecules. For example, heroin has some of the same components as old aspirin and vinegar.

In fact, a study conducted by the Chicago Tribune revealed that drugs or drug paraphernalia was only discovered 44 percent of the time when dogs alerted to the presence of drugs.

Consequently, if you have been charged with a drug crime under similar circumstances, it is possible that the evidence should be suppressed. A skilled criminal defense attorney will ensure a strong defense is established on your behalf. There are nuances to state laws, if you are charged in South Carolina, a skilled Charleston attorney may be able or best suited to help.

Article provided by S. Paul Aaron, Attorney at Law
Visit us at http://www.aaronlawyer.com