NCJ Number
58861
Journal
LEGAL POINTS Issue: 95 Dated: (1978) Pages: COMPLETE ISSUE
Date Published
1978
Length
4 pages
Annotation
TRAINED DOGS MAY BE USED IN LIMITED CIRCUMSTANCES FOR THE DETECTION OF DRUGS, BUT THEY CANNOT BE USED INDISCRIMINATELY WITHOUT VIOLATING SUSPECTS' RIGHT TO PRIVACY.
Abstract
DETECTOR DOGS HAVE PROVEN EFFECTIVE IN DRUG INVESTIGATIONS, ESPECIALLY IN PROVIDING OFFICERS WITH INDICATIONS THAT PROBABLE CAUSE EXISTS FOR A NARCOTICS ARREST. OFFICERS MUST, HOWEVER, BE AWARE OF WHETHER THE AREA OF INITIAL INTRUSION IS SUBJECT TO A SUSPECT'S REASONABLE EXPECTATIONS OF PRIVACY, AND WHETHER THE OFFICERS HAVE PLACED THEMSELVES IN AN AREA IN WHICH THEY LEGALLY WOULD BE ABLE TO DETERMINE THE EXISTENCE OF PROBABLE CAUSE. GENERALLY, THE FOURTH AMENDMENT REQUIRES THAT A SEARCH WARRANT BE ISSUED PRIOR TO A SEARCH FOR CONTRABAND, BUT WARRANTLESS SEARCH IS LEGAL IF PURSUANT TO A VALID ARREST. THE VALIDITY OF THE ARREST IS BASED ON THE PROBABILITY THAT CONTRABAND IS PRESENT, WHICH IS IN TURN BASED ON THE RELIABILITY OF INFORMATION GIVEN TO THE OFFICERS, WHETHER BY AN INFORMER OR A TRAINED POLICE DOG. IN UNITED STATES V. SOLIS (1976), IT WAS NOT UNTIL DETECTOR DOGS WERE USED BY FEDERAL AGENTS THAT THERE WAS SUFFICIENT PROBABLE CAUSE FOR THE ISSUE OF A WARRANT. AFFIDAVITS IN SUPPORT OF THE WARRANT INDICATED THE CREDIBILITY OF THE DOG'S INDICATION OF THE PRESENCE OF DRUGS. THE COURT DECIDED THAT THE WARRANTLESS SEARCH HAD NOT VIOLATED THE DEFENDANT'S REASONABLE EXPECTATIONS OF PRIVACY BECAUSE IT WAS CONDUCTED IN A PUBLIC PLACE. IF, HOWEVER, THE SEARCH WAS CONDUCTED IN A BAGGAGE ROOM, AS IN PEOPLE V. WILLIAMS (1975), THE EVIDENCE FOUND DURING THE SEARCH WOULD BE SUPPRESSED BECAUSE THE POLICE HAVE NO JUSTIFICATION FOR MAKING EXPLORATORY SEARCHES OF PRIVATE AREAS. FOOTNOTES ARE PROVIDED. (TWK).