Dog sniffs: Supreme Court honors privacy of the home
Two recent Supreme Court cases note how dogs may be used in probable cause determinations.
April 12, 2013
Dog sniffs: Supreme Court honors privacy of the homeArticle provided by Fombelle & Fombelle, LLP
Visit us at http://www.decaturdui.com
Many criminal cases involve evidentiary issues, which are based on the Fourth Amendment. Case law is constantly evolving, revealing the boundaries of protection against unreasonable searches and seizures -- in the home, car or on a person. The Fourth Amendment analysis requires a thorough understanding of what constitutes a "search" under the Fourth Amendment. This, in turn, helps the criminal justice system uncover the means to which authorities can legally make a probable cause determination for a search in accordance with the law.
For years, trained alert dogs have been used by law enforcement to detect crimes. However, recently, the Supreme Court has resolved that the use of police dogs to investigate around the home is unconstitutional. According to the ruling, the use of a dog constitutes a search, which requires a search warrant. This decision helps reveal the Court's sentiments regarding the expectation of privacy around a home.
The Court's recent ruling spiraled from Florida case. Florida's highest court suppressed evidence discovered at a man's home through the use of a trained police dog. In this case, authorities allowed the Labrador retriever to smell around the base of the front door of a home after receiving a tip. When the police dog signaled an alert, police searched inside the man's home. The search led to the discovery of evidence -- 25 pounds of marijuana -- and the ultimate arrest of the man.
Once the case reached the Supreme Court, Justices Scalia fleshed out the importance of privacy at the home. He opined that while police may approach or knock on the door of a potential suspect's home, the use of a police dog to investigate the surrounding area of a home in an effort to uncover unlawful evidence breaches the level privacy that should be respected around a home. In Scalia's words, "the home is first among equals."
Ultimately, the recent ruling emphasizes that one's residence carries the greatest level of protection under the Fourth Amendment. However, an earlier decision from 2013 distinguishes the privilege of the home from that of a vehicle. The Court permitted the admission of evidence from a search of a suspect's truck in another Florida-based case. The opinion explained that the officer in that case could reasonably believe that the dog, which alerted to the presence of methamphetamine ingredients inside the vehicle, was reliable. Therefore, the use of the police dog did not constitute a search.
In these two cases, the Court has drawn a line between privacy expectations in one's home in comparison to one's car. Probable cause may not be established using a police dog around the home; however, a dog alert, in combination with an officer's personal suspicions, is sufficient for a vehicle.
Criminal procedure is crucial in criminal cases. If evidence is not obtained in accordance with the Fourth Amendment, it should be excluded and not utilized in the prosecution's criminal case. If you have been charged with a serious crime, retain the assistance of a knowledgeable criminal law attorney. A lawyer can assess whether your rights and privileges have been protected in accordance with the safeguards provided in the Constitution.