# 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:** 8
### Author:  [@Cheesesteak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cheesesteak)
#### Post date: [October 5, 2012, 4:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-a-dog-sniff-at-the-front-door-a-search/636341/141 "2012-10-05T16:24:52Z")
Ok, fair enough, for the sake of the discussion, from the sidewalk it is not a search. It would be perfectly legal and reasonable for the police to command the dog on the sidewalk to “smell” and then let the dog indicate that whatever contraband it smelled was coming from the house.
---
### Author:  [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)
#### Post date: [October 5, 2012, 4:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-a-dog-sniff-at-the-front-door-a-search/636341/142 "2012-10-05T16:26:20Z")
> [@Cheesesteak](#):
>
> Ok, fair enough, for the sake of the discussion, from the sidewalk it is not a search. It would be perfectly legal and reasonable for the police to command the dog on the sidewalk to “smell” and then let the dog indicate that whatever contraband it smelled was coming from the house.
Ok. Next step. Do you think it’s a search if the officer, without a dog, comes up to your door to knock and ask some questions and smell whatever odors might waft out?
---
### Author:  [@Cheesesteak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cheesesteak)
#### Post date: [October 5, 2012, 4:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-a-dog-sniff-at-the-front-door-a-search/636341/143 "2012-10-05T16:26:56Z")
Nope
---
### Author:  [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)
#### Post date: [October 5, 2012, 4:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-a-dog-sniff-at-the-front-door-a-search/636341/144 "2012-10-05T16:28:11Z")
> [@Richard\_Parker](#):
>
> That’s really not fair, you just don’t understand how legal hypotheticals work (which is fine, there’s no reason you should, but you’ll find that the Supreme Court will do exactly what I’m doing right now).
>
> When there are several factors that affect your reasoning about a given situation, a systemic approach holds some of them constant while testing others. I’m trying to determine what you think is not a search, and what is different that makes this a search. To do so, I’m asking about it piece-by-piece. If you thought that it was not a search to do it from the public sidewalk, then we can isolate the fact that it occurs on the porch. If you thought it was still a search from the sidewalk, then I’d know we have a broader dispute.
No, you don’t get to separate the two. What constitutes a legal search on public property is not the same as what constitutes a search on private property. If a police officer finds a desk on the side of a road, a search warrant isn’t needed to open desk drawers to look for information and/or items. If that same desk happens to be in my home office four hours prior, that same officer better have a search warrant to conduct a legal search _of_ my property _on_ my property.
---
### Author:  [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)
#### Post date: [October 5, 2012, 4:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-a-dog-sniff-at-the-front-door-a-search/636341/145 "2012-10-05T16:28:22Z")
> [@Bricker](#):
>
> The officer doesn’t need probable cause to have a dog sniff your car during a traffic stop. He can do a dog sniff because he feels like it, or because the last four numbers of your license plate sum to a prime number.
> [@simster](#):
>
> Thats why I put detects in quotes - I fully understand that - but at some point the officer that is repeatedly on fishing expeditions will have to explain himself to someone. I (would like to) believe that on average, the calling of a drug dog to a traffic stop has some real detective work behind it.
The part that Bricker left out is that the officer needs reasonable suspicion to make the traffic stop in the first place (which means some articulable basis beyond his prime number theory or whatever). In the case we are discussing, the officer has reasonable suspicion, although he doesn’t need it just to walk up to the house.
---
### Author:  [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)
#### Post date: [October 5, 2012, 4:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-a-dog-sniff-at-the-front-door-a-search/636341/146 "2012-10-05T16:29:20Z")
Ok **Cheesesteak**. Now suppose the officer brings the dog, and while the dog is capable of doing a contraband sniff, he doesn’t do so. A search?
---
### Author:  [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)
#### Post date: [October 5, 2012, 4:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-a-dog-sniff-at-the-front-door-a-search/636341/147 "2012-10-05T16:30:36Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#):
>
> No, you don’t get to separate the two. What constitutes a legal search on public property is not the same as what constitutes a search on private property. If a police officer finds a desk on the side of a road, a search warrant isn’t needed to open desk drawers to look for information and/or items. If that same desk happens to be in my home office four hours prior, that same officer better have a search warrant to conduct a legal search _of_ my property _on_ my property.
I’m not trying to separate anything. I’m trying to isolate the facts that you think are legally dispositive and examine them more closely. It’s different.
---
### Author:  [@Cheesesteak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cheesesteak)
#### Post date: [October 5, 2012, 4:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-a-dog-sniff-at-the-front-door-a-search/636341/148 "2012-10-05T16:30:46Z")
Still not a search
---
### Author:  [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)
#### Post date: [October 5, 2012, 4:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-a-dog-sniff-at-the-front-door-a-search/636341/149 "2012-10-05T16:31:24Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#):
>
> No, you don’t get to separate the two. What constitutes a legal search on public property is not the same as what constitutes a search on private property. If a police officer finds a desk on the side of a road, a search warrant isn’t needed to open desk drawers to look for information and/or items. If that same desk happens to be in my home office four hours prior, that same officer better have a search warrant to conduct a legal search _of_ my property _on_ my property.
What if the desk is in your front yard? That seems a more apt analogy here.
---
### Author:  [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)
#### Post date: [October 5, 2012, 4:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-a-dog-sniff-at-the-front-door-a-search/636341/150 "2012-10-05T16:32:14Z")
> [@Richard\_Parker](#):
>
> Ok **Cheesesteak**. Now suppose the officer brings the dog, and while the dog is capable of doing a contraband sniff, he doesn’t do so. A search?
Clarification, please: does this hypothetical dog decide on its own whether to sniff a place out, or doe it respond on command?
---
### Author:  [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)
#### Post date: [October 5, 2012, 4:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-a-dog-sniff-at-the-front-door-a-search/636341/151 "2012-10-05T16:32:36Z")
> [@Cheesesteak](#):
>
> Still not a search
Now suppose the dog sniffs the inside, but doesn’t alert or otherwise react in any way. The officer leaves. Was it a search?
---
### Author:  [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)
#### Post date: [October 5, 2012, 4:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-a-dog-sniff-at-the-front-door-a-search/636341/152 "2012-10-05T16:33:40Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#):
>
> Clarification, please: does this hypothetical dog decide on its own whether to sniff a place out, or doe it respond on command?
Ah, now you see how we isolate important facts! 🙂
Does it matter which it is? Let’s say on command for present purposes, but it might be interesting to see how you come out on the other version eventually.
---
### Author:  [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)
#### Post date: [October 5, 2012, 4:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-a-dog-sniff-at-the-front-door-a-search/636341/153 "2012-10-05T16:35:28Z")
> [@Richard\_Parker](#):
>
> Now suppose the dog sniffs the inside, but doesn’t alert or otherwise react in any way. The officer leaves. Was it a search?
Without anyone’s knowledge, the instrument turned itself on, but didn’t give a readout to the officer? Are you asking whether the cat in the box is alive or dead?
---
### Author:  [@Cheesesteak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cheesesteak)
#### Post date: [October 5, 2012, 4:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-a-dog-sniff-at-the-front-door-a-search/636341/154 "2012-10-05T16:36:16Z")
boy, you’re really cutting it fine now.
I’ll still say no, assuming that the dog was not directed to sniff by the officer, or trained to sniff without reacting by officers.
---
### Author:  [@Grumman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Grumman)
#### Post date: [October 5, 2012, 4:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-a-dog-sniff-at-the-front-door-a-search/636341/155 "2012-10-05T16:37:23Z")
> [@Richard\_Parker](#):
>
> See post #33. Whether the dog’s alert should establish probable cause is a separate question from whether the sniff is a search.
You’re missing the point. The officer is _not allowed_ to detect legal activity unless he either has permission to perform a search or he’s only using ordinary methods available to everyone - that is your right to privacy. It doesn’t matter what he does with it or what he’s looking for, it’s an illegal search.
---
### Author:  [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)
#### Post date: [October 5, 2012, 4:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-a-dog-sniff-at-the-front-door-a-search/636341/156 "2012-10-05T16:37:24Z")
> [@Cheesesteak](#):
>
> boy, you’re really cutting it fine now.
>
> I’ll still say no, assuming that the dog was not directed to sniff by the officer, or trained to sniff without reacting by officers.
Do I correctly infer that if the officer commanded the sniff, but it is otherwise the same scenario (i.e., the dog sniffs but doesn’t react), that you believe it to be a search?
---
### Author:  [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)
#### Post date: [October 5, 2012, 4:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-a-dog-sniff-at-the-front-door-a-search/636341/157 "2012-10-05T16:38:25Z")
> [@Richard\_Parker](#):
>
> Ah, now you see how we isolate important facts! 🙂
>
> Does it matter which it is? Let’s say on command for present purposes, but it might be interesting to see how you come out on the other version eventually.
The officer took the equipment that can no way on earth be described as “his nose” to the front door and turned it on to detect the contents therein? Search.
The other scenario: The officer took an instrument that is always on up to the front door to detect the contents therein? Search.
---
### Author:  [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)
#### Post date: [October 5, 2012, 4:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-a-dog-sniff-at-the-front-door-a-search/636341/158 "2012-10-05T16:38:33Z")
> [@Grumman](#):
>
> The officer is _not allowed_ to detect legal activity unless he either has permission or he’s only using ordinary methods available to everyone - that is your right to privacy.
That’s a fine assertion, but it’s not an argument. I’ve already explained to you (actually Stevens had explained) why \*Kyllo \*does not so hold.
---
### Author:  [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)
#### Post date: [October 5, 2012, 4:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-a-dog-sniff-at-the-front-door-a-search/636341/159 "2012-10-05T16:41:26Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#):
>
> The officer took the equipment that can no way on earth be described as “his nose” to the front door and turned it on to detect the contents therein? Search.
> The other scenario: The officer took an instrument that is always on up to the front door to detect the contents therein? Search.
Ok. This is very helpful.
Same facts, but the dog actually has no sense of smell (but the officer doesn’t know this). Still a search?
(I know this seems fanciful, but this is to test whether it’s the intent of the officer that you think is key.)
---
### Author:  [@Cheesesteak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cheesesteak)
#### Post date: [October 5, 2012, 4:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-a-dog-sniff-at-the-front-door-a-search/636341/160 "2012-10-05T16:42:36Z")
If the officer commanded the dog to sniff, or the dog was trained to sniff, I would think there would be a purpose to that. He is no longer a passive participant in this scenario, he’s been activated, and is gathering information about what is inside my house. The fact that he is not reacting does not mean he won’t react in the future, after a command to do so.
[Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-a-dog-sniff-at-the-front-door-a-search/636341.md?page=7)
[Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-a-dog-sniff-at-the-front-door-a-search/636341.md?page=9)