Court limits use of drug-detecting dogs

April 03, 2013 (Press-News.org) Court limits use of drug-detecting dogs

Article provided by Dziedziak & Marcus, P.C.
Visit us at http://www.dzmlaw.com

Police departments across the country have a large number of officers focused on the investigation of drug crimes that are occurring in their cities. These investigations often lead to many agencies working together to try to catch the individuals responsible for introducing the drugs into the community. If police learn any evidence about the source of the drugs, they will be aggressive in trying to make an arrest.

Once an arrest has been made, it is important to review the behavior of law enforcement to determine if the officers acted properly. If any of the actions infringed on an individual's constitutional rights, the evidence may be thrown out. But, the issue is not always easy to determine by a review of the applicable laws, and occasionally the matter will be an issue that needs to be clarified by the U.S. Supreme Court.

One recent case before the Court concerns a question about the privacy interests that an individual has in the area around his or her home. Local police officers, working together with Drug Enforcement Administration agents, were investigating drug crimes in Florida when they received a tip that an individual was growing marijuana at a residence. The officers went to the home, and watched the property for 15 minutes. During this time, no one arrived at or departed from the house.

After the 15 minutes had passed, another officer arrived at the scene, with a drug-detecting dog. The officers and police dog approached the home's porch, when the dog began to alert to the smell of narcotics. The dog sat down at the front door of the home, which is a sign that indicates where the strongest point of the odor is located.

Using the evidence gained by the dog's search, police requested a search warrant to enter the residence. When police executed the warrant, the homeowner attempted to flee and was apprehended. Marijuana plants were found inside the residence.

The homeowner that was accused of these crimes stated that the police infringed upon his Fourth Amendment rights when they brought the police dog on to the property without a warrant. The Florida Supreme Court agreed with the individual, and did not allow the evidence that was seized at the home to be used against the homeowner. The U.S. Supreme Court then decided to take the case, to determine if the use of the police dog on the individual's property was in fact a search.

The Court ruled that the use of the dog was an unreasonable search and seizure. The decision noted that an individual's home is provided the most protections by the Fourth Amendment, and the area surrounding the home is to receive this protection as well. Since the porch in this case was clearly connected to the home, the ruling indicated that it was an area in which the homeowner could expect to have privacy.

This case demonstrates how aggressively law enforcement agencies will investigate drug crimes. If you are facing drug charges, speak to an experienced criminal defense attorney as soon as possible. Police may try to ask you questions about alleged criminal activity, and you need to exercise your right to remain silent. Whatever you tell police can be used against you, and make it much more difficult to present a strong defense against the allegations.