U.S. Supreme Court rules on reliability of drug-sniffing dogs
The Supreme Court recently issued a unanimous ruling holding that a drug-sniffing dog's alert can form the grounds for a warrantless search of a vehicle, so long as a reasonably prudent person would have grounds to believe that a search would produce evidence of a drug offense.
April 06, 2013
U.S. Supreme Court rules on reliability of drug-sniffing dogsArticle provided by Law Office of Gerard S. Williams, P.A.
Visit us at http://www.gerardwilliamslaw.com
For years, law enforcement officers have relied on drug-sniffing dogs to alert them to the presence of illegal drugs. In a traffic stop, a drug-sniffing dog's alert can give police justification to search a suspect's vehicle without a warrant.
Many have decried this practice, arguing that drug-sniffing dogs aren't reliable enough to give police legitimate grounds for a warrantless search. They reasoned that prosecutors should have to prove that a dog can be trusted before any evidence resulting from the dog's alert can be used in court.
The Supreme Court of the United States dealt these opponents a major blow in February, when it issued a unanimous ruling holding that a drug-sniffing dog's alert can form the grounds for a warrantless search of a vehicle, so long as a reasonably prudent person would have grounds to believe that a search would produce evidence of a drug offense.
Case rooted in Florida arrest
The case stemmed from a 2006 traffic stop in Liberty County, Florida. In that stop, a canine officer had pulled over a pickup truck because the vehicle had expired plates. Upon speaking to the driver, the officer noted that he appeared nervous and possibly under the influence of drugs. When the driver refused to consent to a search of the vehicle, the officer brought out his drug-sniffing dog -- a German shepherd named Aldo -- to sniff the air around the vehicle.
During the sniff, Aldo alerted to a suspicious smell on the door handle on the driver's side of the truck. The officer then searched the vehicle and discovered supplies used to manufacture methamphetamine. The driver admitted that he was addicted to meth and that he had been manufacturing it himself.
At trial, the driver's criminal defense attorney sought to exclude the evidence from the search, arguing that the prosecution could not prove Aldo's reliability. Ultimately, the dispute went all the way to the Florida Supreme Court, which ended up siding with the driver. The Florida Supreme Courtcreated a detailed checklist of reliability requirements that a drug-sniffing dog must meet before its alert to a suspect smell can be treated as "probable cause" to form the basis of a warrantless search.
The prosecution appealed the case to the Supreme Court of the United States, which overturned the Florida Supreme Court's checklist in favor of a "reasonably prudent person" test. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that in most cases, it will be sufficient for the police to produce evidence showing that the dog has been sufficiently trained, or that it has received a certificate from a training agency. All that is required is a common-sense basis to believe that the dog is properly alerting to the smell of illegal drugs.
The future of drug-sniffing dogs in Florida
The U.S. Supreme Court's ruling means that Florida residents who are arrested for drug crimes based on evidence unearthed by a drug-sniffing dog may have fewer options for challenging that evidence in court. However, this is not to say every search will be unimpeachable. Depending on the factors leading to the traffic stop and the decision to bring out a drug-sniffing dog, defendants may still have reasonable grounds to argue that their constitutional rights have been violated.
Because of this, it is important to consult with an experienced Florida criminal defense attorney after an arrest. The attorney will be able to evaluate the facts of the case to determine the best options for moving forward.