Is a dog sniff at the front door a search?

[lawbuff]

@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 SC has ruled that an investigative motor vehicle stop must last no longer than the time it takes to effect the purpose of the stop.

While a drug dog can be called to the scene, it had better not delay a swift conclusion of the initial purpose of the stop, or it is an UNreasonable seizure, and that can turn into an ARREST, categorization by the police notwithstanding.

[simster]

@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?

yes

[lawbuff]

@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.

The same, as I am sure you know, an officer can run a persons license plate for NO reason, as the courts have determined it is NOT a search.

[Richard_Parker]

@simster

yes

Ok, then the same question I posed to Czarcasm. Does it matter whether the dog can actually smell or not? Suppose the same facts apply, but unknown to the officer, this particular dog thinks the whole world smells like pineapples?

[simster]

@Richard_Parker

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.)

the intent of the officer is key - he brought the tool - the occupant may/may not be aware of the efficiancy of the tool - the officer can ‘attest’ that the tool was positive to force a more thorough search.

[Grumman]

@Richard_Parker

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.

Stevens is wrong. When he says that the use of a sniffer dog only allows the officer to detect unlawful activity, he is either ignorant or lying. His argument is founded on a factually untrue premise, and is thus of no more merit than if he’d said “Because your Toyota is an aeroplane, the TSA has the right to search you when you enter your garage.”

[Czarcasm]

@simster

yes

I agree. Bothe the intent and the attempt were there. It may have been a defective search, buit so what?

[Richard_Parker]

@Grumman

Stevens is wrong. When he says that the use of a sniffer dog only allows the officer to detect unlawful activity, he is either ignorant or lying. His argument is founded on a factually untrue premise, and is thus of no more merit than if he’d said “Because your Toyota is an aeroplane, the TSA has the right to search you when you enter your garage.”

Ok. The previous time you said he was wrong you identified a factor that you’ve now admitted is irrelevant. Do you have a different reason now for thinking he is wrong?

@simster

the intent of the officer is key - he brought the tool - the occupant may/may not be aware of the efficiancy of the tool - the officer can ‘attest’ that the tool was positive to force a more thorough search.

So that’s a “yes,” it’s a search regardless of whether this dog can smell or not?

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

@Grumman

Stevens is wrong. When he says that the use of a sniffer dog only allows the officer to detect unlawful activity, he is either ignorant or lying.

What else does it allow the officer to detect?

[Czarcasm]

@Richard_Parker

Ok, then the same question I posed to Czarcasm. Does it matter whether the dog can actually smell or not? Suppose the same facts apply, but unknown to the officer, this particular dog thinks the whole world smells like pineapples?

Please tell me you wouldn’t actually use this chain of questions in an actual court of law.

[simster]

@Richard_Parker

Ok. The previous time you said he was wrong you identified a factor that you’ve now admitted is irrelevant. Do you have a different reason now for thinking he is wrong?

So that’s a “yes,” it’s a search regardless of whether this dog can smell or not?

yes - as the results of the ‘search’ will affect further dealings -

[Czarcasm]

@Richard_Parker

So that’s a “yes,” it’s a search regardless of whether this dog can smell or not?

IS there both intent and attempt to search?

[Richard_Parker]

@Czarcasm

I agree. Bothe the intent and the attempt were there. It may have been a defective search, buit so what?

Ok. One last question and then I think I’ll have a complete view of your position. Suppose the officer on the porch, in an effort to discover whether you have contraband or not, peers into your window (which he could not have seen in from the street). Search?

[simster]

@Really_Not_All_That_Bright

What else does it allow the officer to detect?

reaction of the suspect that might not happen had the tool been left behind.

[Richard_Parker]

@Czarcasm

Please tell me you wouldn’t actually use this chain of questions in an actual court of law.

Of course I would! It’s been very effective at discovering the scope of what you think a search is.

[simster]

@Richard_Parker

Ok. One last question and then I think I’ll have a complete view of your position. Suppose the officer on the porch, in an effort to discover whether you have contraband or not, peers into your window (which he could not have seen in from the street). Search?

Plain sight rule is in effect - and you know that is different than a dog’s nose or an eagle’s eye, etc.

[Cheesesteak]

@Richard_Parker

Ok, then the same question I posed to Czarcasm. Does it matter whether the dog can actually smell or not? Suppose the same facts apply, but unknown to the officer, this particular dog thinks the whole world smells like pineapples?

If officer Stevie Wonder wants to search my house, it’s a search.

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

What else does it allow the officer to detect?

reaction of the suspect that might not happen had the tool been left behind.

What reaction? The dog is sniffing through a closed door. In any event, the officer could just as easily bring along his wife’s golden retriever and tell the suspect it was a sniffer dog.

[lawbuff]

@Richard_Parker

Ok. One last question and then I think I’ll have a complete view of your position. Suppose the officer on the porch, in an effort to discover whether you have contraband or not, peers into your window (which he could not have seen in from the street). Search?

The rationale of Minnesota v. Carter and progenies may answer that.

[Czarcasm]

@Richard_Parker

Ok. One last question and then I think I’ll have a complete view of your position. Suppose the officer on the porch, in an effort to discover whether you have contraband or not, peers into your window (which he could not have seen in from the street). Search?

With his own eyes, or with equipment designed for that purpose?