# Is a dog sniff at the front door a search?
**URL:** https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-a-dog-sniff-at-the-front-door-a-search/636341
**Category:** Great Debates
**Created:** [September 30, 2012, 11:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-a-dog-sniff-at-the-front-door-a-search/636341 "2012-09-30T23:38:04Z")
**Posts on this page:** 20
**Page:** 12
### Author:  [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)
#### Post date: [October 5, 2012, 6:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-a-dog-sniff-at-the-front-door-a-search/636341/221 "2012-10-05T18:05:48Z")
> [@lawbuff](#):
>
> Yes, a sign provides the “Notice Requirement” that the owner has revoked “implied permission” to enter, therefore trespassing laws would apply.
I recall now that the Supreme Court has held that because “No Trespassing” signs are routinely disobeyed, they are not sufficient to make your property private. Oliver v. United States, 466 U.S. 170, 179 (1984)
---
### Author:  [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)
#### Post date: [October 5, 2012, 6:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-a-dog-sniff-at-the-front-door-a-search/636341/222 "2012-10-05T18:06:50Z")
> [@simster](#):
>
> While the dog may not alert to my ‘nefarious’ collection - it would allow the officer to invoke the plain sight rule as they go search thru - again, without the warrant.
See post #33. You too **Acid Lamp**. You are both conflating the question of whether something is a search with whether the sniff should justify going inside the house.
---
### Author:  [@lawbuff](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lawbuff)
#### Post date: [October 5, 2012, 6:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-a-dog-sniff-at-the-front-door-a-search/636341/223 "2012-10-05T18:11:23Z")
> [@Richard\_Parker](#):
>
> I recall now that the Supreme Court has held that because “No Trespassing” signs are routinely disobeyed, they are not sufficient to make your property private. Oliver v. United States, 466 U.S. 170, 179 (1984)
We were discussing that in another thread, that is a 4th AM “Open fields” case, not relevant here.
---
### Author:  [@Acid\_Lamp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acid_Lamp)
#### Post date: [October 5, 2012, 6:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-a-dog-sniff-at-the-front-door-a-search/636341/224 "2012-10-05T18:11:27Z")
Doesn’t matter at all to me. The only reason to “search” is for the detection of a crime. Presuppsosition of innocence, coupled with the necessity of warrants should be more than enough to counter your argument here.
---
### Author:  [@lawbuff](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lawbuff)
#### Post date: [October 5, 2012, 6:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-a-dog-sniff-at-the-front-door-a-search/636341/225 "2012-10-05T18:14:00Z")
> [@Acid\_Lamp](#):
>
> Doesn’t matter at all to me. The only reason to “search” is for the detection of a crime. Presuppsosition of innocence, coupled with the necessity of warrants should be more than enough to counter your argument here.
Read New York v. Class, the police opened the car door to view the PIN, NOT a search.
---
### Author:  [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)
#### Post date: [October 5, 2012, 6:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-a-dog-sniff-at-the-front-door-a-search/636341/226 "2012-10-05T18:14:02Z")
> [@lawbuff](#):
>
> We were discussing that in another thread, that is a 4th AM “Open fields” case, not relevant here.
On the contrary, it is highly relevant here. The question is whether you can close off an otherwise public area (i.e., your porch) by posting signs withholding permission, effectively making people who go on your porch trespassers. Since the Court has already said that you cannot do so with an open field, by what reasoning should the porch be different? You might say, because it’s a porch, but that’s a distinction, not a reason. Why does the difference matter with respect to the principle in question, namely, whether a concedely public space becomes private by the posting of signs?
---
### Author:  [@simster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/simster)
#### Post date: [October 5, 2012, 6:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-a-dog-sniff-at-the-front-door-a-search/636341/227 "2012-10-05T18:17:27Z")
> [@Richard\_Parker](#):
>
> See post #33. You too **Acid Lamp**. You are both conflating the question of whether something is a search with whether the sniff should justify going inside the house.
WHat is the drug dog if not a tool for searching for drugs ?
Would this change if the tool was an electronic nose that had zero chance of error?
Does a ‘hit’ enable the officer to proceed without a warrant?
Is there any chance of abuse of said tool for other purposes where following the guidelines to obtain warrants might help to prevent?
---
### Author:  [@lawbuff](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lawbuff)
#### Post date: [October 5, 2012, 6:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-a-dog-sniff-at-the-front-door-a-search/636341/228 "2012-10-05T18:18:22Z")
> [@Richard\_Parker](#):
>
> On the contrary, it is highly relevant here. The question is whether you can close off an otherwise public area (i.e., your porch) by posting signs withholding permission, effectively making people who go on your porch trespassers. Since the Court has already said that you cannot do so with an open field, by what reasoning should the porch be different? You might say, because it’s a porch, but that’s a distinction, not a reason. Why does the difference matter with respect to the principle in question, namely, whether a concedely public space becomes private by the posting of signs?
What I meant specifically was, “Open fields” have LESS 4th AM protection, period, and a No trespassing sign is irrelevant in that regard.
NON state actors are usually not bound by the constitution.
---
### Author:  [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)
#### Post date: [October 5, 2012, 6:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-a-dog-sniff-at-the-front-door-a-search/636341/229 "2012-10-05T18:20:37Z")
> [@simster](#):
>
> What is the drug dog if not a tool for searching for drugs ?
That’s what it is.
> [@simster](#):
>
> Would this change if the tool was an electronic nose that had zero chance of error?
The question of whether it’s a search or not does not change based on the reliability, under current law.
[Quote=simster]
Does a ‘hit’ enable the officer to proceed without a warrant?
[/quote]
This is an open question, as discussed earlier in the thread. But it is also a separate question from whether it’s a search.
> [@simster](#):
>
> Is there any chance of abuse of said tool for other purposes where following the guidelines to obtain warrants might help to prevent?
Definitely. But again, not relevant to whether it’s a search.
---
### Author:  [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)
#### Post date: [October 5, 2012, 6:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-a-dog-sniff-at-the-front-door-a-search/636341/230 "2012-10-05T18:23:37Z")
> [@lawbuff](#):
>
> What I meant specifically was, “Open fields” have LESS 4th AM protection, period, and a No trespassing sign is irrelevant in that regard.
That’s not correct. Open fields, like porches, are both considered non-private spaces under Fourth Amendment law. Posting a “No Trespassing” sign doesn’t make an open field private. Why does it make a porch private, in your view?
> [@lawbuff](#):
>
> NON state actors are usually not bound by the constitution.
That’s true, but irrelevant. The relevant point is that we calibrate the Fourth Amendment’s recognition of privacy based on what you open to view of non-state actors.
---
### Author:  [@simster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/simster)
#### Post date: [October 5, 2012, 6:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-a-dog-sniff-at-the-front-door-a-search/636341/231 "2012-10-05T18:25:46Z")
> [@Richard\_Parker](#):
>
> That’s what it is.
>
> The question of whether it’s a search or not does not change based on the reliability, under current law.
>
> This is an open question, as discussed earlier in the thread. But it is also a separate question from whether it’s a search.
>
> Definitely. But again, not relevant to whether it’s a search.
It is a search - it is a search that is specific and only applies to one ‘class of items’, by definition illegal - and it allows access to areas that an officer would not get in ‘plain sight’.
---
### Author:  [@lawbuff](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lawbuff)
#### Post date: [October 5, 2012, 6:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-a-dog-sniff-at-the-front-door-a-search/636341/232 "2012-10-05T18:36:01Z")
> [@Richard\_Parker](#):
>
> That’s not correct. Open fields, like porches, are both considered non-private spaces under Fourth Amendment law. Posting a “No Trespassing” sign doesn’t make an open field private. Why does it make a porch private, in your view?
Original post by Elendil’s hier;
From Rhines v. Bailiss (2005), 140 Ohio Misc.2d 5:
…the “‘right to communicate and persuade [does] not include the right to trespass’ on another’s rights.” Cleveland v. Sundermeier (1989), 48 Ohio App.3d 204, 549 N.E.2d 561, quoting Cleveland v. Egeland (1986), 26 Ohio App.3d 83, 26 O.B.R. 258, 497 N.E.2d 1383. “[E]ach householder [has] the full right to decide whether he will receive strangers as visitors.” Martin v. Struthers (1943), 319 U.S. 141, 63 S.Ct. 862, 87 L.Ed. 1313. The defendant’s wife did not ask the plaintiff [a Jehovah’s Witness] to leave the premises, but if she had, the plaintiff would have been obliged to comply. A homeowner may also post a **“no solicitors”** sign to avoid unwanted religious, political, or commercial contacts, or even Halloween trick-or-treaters. Watchtower [Bible & Tract Society of N.Y., Inc. v. Stratton (2002), 536 U.S. 150]; Schaumburg v. Citizens for a Better Environment (1980), 444 U.S. 620, 100 S.Ct. 826, 63 L.Ed.2d 73…
One element of Ohio’s trespassing law is;
(4) Being on the land or premises of another, negligently fail or refuse to leave upon being notified by signage posted in a conspicuous place or otherwise being notified to do so by the owner or occupant, or the agent or servant of either.
---
### Author:  [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)
#### Post date: [October 5, 2012, 6:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-a-dog-sniff-at-the-front-door-a-search/636341/233 "2012-10-05T18:37:36Z")
If you read the opinion I cited, you’ll note that the Court held that the police might well be trespassing, but that this would be irrelevant to the Fourth Amendment.
---
### Author:  [@lawbuff](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lawbuff)
#### Post date: [October 5, 2012, 6:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-a-dog-sniff-at-the-front-door-a-search/636341/234 "2012-10-05T18:43:29Z")
> [@Richard\_Parker](#):
>
> If you read the opinion I cited, you’ll note that the Court held that the police might well be trespassing, but that this would be irrelevant to the Fourth Amendment.
True, as the Exclusionary Rule ONLY applies to Constitutional violations, NOT statutory ones, and most states follow this. I do know though in TX, they include statutory violations though in the ER.
---
### Author:  [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)
#### Post date: [October 5, 2012, 6:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-a-dog-sniff-at-the-front-door-a-search/636341/235 "2012-10-05T18:46:51Z")
And since the Court recognized in \*Jones \*that trespass now does have some relevance, I suppose you could argue that \*Oliver \*is outdated.
---
### Author:  [@lawbuff](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lawbuff)
#### Post date: [October 5, 2012, 6:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-a-dog-sniff-at-the-front-door-a-search/636341/236 "2012-10-05T18:51:35Z")
> [@Richard\_Parker](#):
>
> And since the Court recognized in \*Jones \*that trespass now does have some relevance, I suppose you could argue that \*Oliver \*is outdated.
Not really, as an auto is not an open field! Trespass upon the person is different from trespass upon the property, comparing Jones to Oliver that is.
---
### Author:  [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)
#### Post date: [October 5, 2012, 6:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-a-dog-sniff-at-the-front-door-a-search/636341/237 "2012-10-05T18:54:10Z")
That’s not how legal reasoning works. It is a different set of facts, but the question is whether the difference matters–whether the principle is relevant to both factual categories. Before, trespass was categorically irrelevant to the Fourth Amendment. That’s not true anymore. So there’s some reason to think a different result might obtain under Oliver. Jones doesn’t hold that, of course, but that wasn’t what I was suggesting.
---
### Author:  [@lawbuff](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lawbuff)
#### Post date: [October 5, 2012, 6:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-a-dog-sniff-at-the-front-door-a-search/636341/238 "2012-10-05T18:58:48Z")
> [@Richard\_Parker](#):
>
> That’s not how legal reasoning works. It is a different set of facts, but the question is whether the difference matters–whether the principle is relevant to both factual categories. Before, trespass was categorically irrelevant to the Fourth Amendment. That’s not true anymore. So there’s some reason to think a different result might obtain under Oliver. Jones doesn’t hold that, of course, but that wasn’t what I was suggesting.
We also have to remember, Jones concerned an AUTOMOBILE, and as previously ruled, there is a lesser expectation of privacy there.
True, the court ruled a SW is required, that is fact, but the 2 doctrines are not conflicting, IMO.
---
### Author:  [@Saint\_Cad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Saint_Cad)
#### Post date: [October 5, 2012, 7:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-a-dog-sniff-at-the-front-door-a-search/636341/239 "2012-10-05T19:31:04Z")
We have a lot of great and knowlegable lawyers on this site but can I hijack this thread to point out that Richard Parker is doing an especially ass-kicking job in this thread educating us IANALs. Bricker, lawbuff and bearflag always do a great job analyzing the law and cases for us and this thread is no exception (maybe for bearflag since I don’t think he’s posted).
Reading this thread makes me feel like I’ve taken a law class on the 4th Amendment.
---
### Author:  [@lawbuff](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lawbuff)
#### Post date: [October 5, 2012, 7:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-a-dog-sniff-at-the-front-door-a-search/636341/240 "2012-10-05T19:37:12Z")
> [@Saint\_Cad](#):
>
> We have a lot of great and knowlegable lawyers on this site but can I hijack this thread to point out that Richard Parker is doing an especially ass-kicking job in this thread educating us IANALs. Bricker, lawbuff and bearflag always do a great job analyzing the law and cases for us and this thread is no exception (maybe for bearflag since I don’t think he’s posted).
>
> Reading this thread makes me feel like I’ve taken a law class on the 4th Amendment.
Why thanks, I even sent Richard a PM telling him he was very good. Since I sent it, I guess I can tell that on the board.
I did take Criminal law as my Major in College, and I do “attempt” to keep up with it.
Of course back then Terry v. Ohio, was a so called recent case, and now look at the law that has been ruled on from it.
As a side note, the 4th AM can also bind a private entity, little known fact.
[Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-a-dog-sniff-at-the-front-door-a-search/636341.md?page=11)
[Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-a-dog-sniff-at-the-front-door-a-search/636341.md?page=13)