Supreme Court hears case concerning warrantless use of drug dogs

April 12, 2013 (Press-News.org) Supreme Court hears case concerning warrantless use of drug dogs

Article provided by Marianne F. Auriemma
Visit us at http://www.maywooddwiattorney.com

Investigations into suspected drug crimes can be some of the most complex operations run by law enforcement. Many different agencies can be involved in the process, and it is often a very costly and time-consuming process. Those accused of drug crimes often do not know they are the target of an investigation until they are charged with a crime.

Because of the secrecy involved in these investigations, law enforcement may try to engage in behaviors that may jeopardize an individual's Fourth Amendment rights against illegal searches and seizures. The U.S. Supreme Court recently heard a case that may greatly increase the number of people facing drug crimes charges.

The case concerned the use of drug-detecting dogs in Florida. In the first case, law enforcement received a tip that an individual was growing marijuana inside a residence. The officer went to the address, and monitored the home for approximately 15 minutes.

The officer then sent for a drug-detecting dog. The dog was taken to the front steps of the home, and the dog indicated that drugs were present inside. Officers then obtained a warrant, and the subsequent search turned up the drugs.

In the second case, a motorist was pulled over for having expired tags on the vehicle's license plates. When the officer walked up to the driver, he observed that the driver was exhibiting signs that lead the officer to believe the driver may have been using drugs.

The officer asked to search the vehicle, and the motorist refused the officer permission. At that point, the officer retrieved a drug-detecting dog and led the dog around the vehicle. The dog indicated the presence of drugs on the door handle. Based upon this information, the officer then searched the vehicle. Chemicals were found inside that were acquired to be used in the manufacture of methamphetamines.

In both of these cases, lower courts had thrown out the evidence that was used to support the drug charges that the individuals were facing. The courts ruled that police needed to obtain warrants before using these dogs in these specific instances, and that police behavior in these cases violated the Fourth Amendment.

The Supreme Court has been asked to review those decisions, and they have had some questions concerning the accuracy of these dogs. Most of the drug-detecting dogs do not have statistics that show false-positive hits, which means they could be wrong more often than they are right. If the Court permits the use of the dogs without warrants, this could expose many more individuals to false charges.

If you have been charged with selling, possessing or manufacturing drugs, it is important to take the matter very seriously. Prosecutors will be aggressive in pursuing convictions in these cases. Speak to an experienced criminal defense attorney to understand the options available to you. Each case is different, and will require a careful review of the facts in order to determine how best to protect your rights.