# Question About Bomb Sniffing Dogs, Search Warrants, and Relevant Laws **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [February 13, 2013, 10:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-about-bomb-sniffing-dogs-search-warrants-and-relevant-laws/650226 "2013-02-13T22:36:41Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 11\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![DocCathode](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/doccathode/32/18773_2.png) [@DocCathode](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DocCathode)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2013, 10:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-about-bomb-sniffing-dogs-search-warrants-and-relevant-laws/650226/1 "2013-02-13T22:36:41Z")
I just saw a story on the local news. A survivalist named Fernando Salguero was arrested for having “incendiary devices” and some other illegal things. Salguero’s car, an ex police car apparently, was parked illegally in the lot of a New Jersey courthouse. This seemed suspicious to the cops. They brought in a bomb sniffing dog. Based on the dog indicating explosives, they got a search warrant and searched the car. This is surprised me. I thought you needed a warrant to bring in the dogs and that having a dog sniff your vehicle constituted a search. What gives? ---
**Author:** ![Doctor\_Jackson](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/doctor_jackson/32/32_2.png) [@Doctor\_Jackson](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Doctor_Jackson)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2013, 10:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-about-bomb-sniffing-dogs-search-warrants-and-relevant-laws/650226/2 "2013-02-13T22:49:14Z")
Reasonable cause. A car parked illegally in front of a courthouse, no driver or passenger to be found, would probably be reasonable cause. Whether a warrant is required for a search dog to sniff outside a vehicle is a bit up in the air right now [http://www.pewstates.org/projects/stateline/headlines/do-police-need-search-warrants-for-drug-sniffing-dogs-85899427431](http://www.pewstates.org/projects/stateline/headlines/do-police-need-search-warrants-for-drug-sniffing-dogs-85899427431) You didn’t link to an article, how do you know the cops didn’t get a warrant based on probable cause? ---
**Author:** ![dstarfire](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dstarfire/32/5762_2.png) [@dstarfire](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dstarfire)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2013, 11:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-about-bomb-sniffing-dogs-search-warrants-and-relevant-laws/650226/3 "2013-02-13T23:09:07Z")
I’m curious where you heard that usage of bomb-sniffing dogs required a warrant, since that doesn’t seem very logical. (A police office could look through the windows of a parked car without a warrant, so why would using a tool to check for gases released by your vehicle into the public space require a warrant?). I know of too many cases where simple logic doesn’t match the law or even reality, to say you’re wrong, but it **seems** improbable. ---
**Author:** ![DocCathode](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/doccathode/32/18773_2.png) [@DocCathode](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DocCathode)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2013, 11:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-about-bomb-sniffing-dogs-search-warrants-and-relevant-laws/650226/4 "2013-02-13T23:09:39Z")
> [@Doctor\_Jackson](#): > > You didn’t link to an article,[ I’m looking for one. I saw the story on televison, not in the paper. I’m looking for a story online. > [@](#): > > how do you know the cops didn’t get a warrant based on probable cause? The story I saw was very specific that cops brought in a dog and then got a warrant to search the car based on the dog’s findings. Found a story online > **[Man Charged After Bomb Scare Outside Somerdale Police Station](https://www.cbsnews.com/philadelphia/news/bomb-scare-at-sommerdale-nj-police-station/)** > > A man is facing charges after an illegally parked car near a police station in Camden County led to the response of the bomb squad. > [@](#): > > Due to the suspiciousness of the vehicle, the police department requested the assistance of the county’s bomb squad. > > During a search of the outside perimeter of the vehicle, a K-9 indicated the presence or previous presence of explosive materials inside the car. > > A search warrant was eventually obtained and investigators searched the vehicle. Although a search yielded no explosives, police did charge Salguero. Again it says that the dog sniffing came before the search warrant ---
**Author:** ![Rick](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/9f8e36/32.png) [@Rick](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rick)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2013, 11:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-about-bomb-sniffing-dogs-search-warrants-and-relevant-laws/650226/5 "2013-02-13T23:12:33Z")
World’s easiest warrant to get: “Judge we think there might be a bomb outside your courthouse.” [Boom] \<- sound of judges pen breaking the sound barrier as he signs warrant. ---
**Author:** ![DocCathode](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/doccathode/32/18773_2.png) [@DocCathode](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DocCathode)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2013, 11:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-about-bomb-sniffing-dogs-search-warrants-and-relevant-laws/650226/6 "2013-02-13T23:16:45Z")
**dStarfire** Whether a warrant _should_ be required before you send in the dogs is a topic for GD. I did think one was required though. ---
**Author:** ![friedo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/8edcca/32.png) [@friedo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/friedo)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2013, 11:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-about-bomb-sniffing-dogs-search-warrants-and-relevant-laws/650226/7 "2013-02-13T23:17:30Z")
> [@Rick](#): > > World’s easiest warrant to get: > “Judge we think there might be a bomb outside your courthouse.” > [Boom] \<- sound of judges pen breaking the sound barrier as he signs warrant. You don’t need a warrant to smell someone’s car parked in a public place. Once the dog makes an indication, you may need a warrant to go into the car and search it. ---
**Author:** ![DocCathode](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/doccathode/32/18773_2.png) [@DocCathode](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DocCathode)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2013, 11:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-about-bomb-sniffing-dogs-search-warrants-and-relevant-laws/650226/8 "2013-02-13T23:22:44Z")
> [@friedo](#): > > You don’t need a warrant to smell someone’s car parked in a public place. According to **DoctorJackson** ’s link, you might. The Supremes are expected to rule this year. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2013, 11:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-about-bomb-sniffing-dogs-search-warrants-and-relevant-laws/650226/9 "2013-02-13T23:28:52Z")
There is an “automobile” warrant exception, which basically says you have a lower expectation of privacy in a vehicle because they are heavily regulated and for public policy reasons\*. Furthermore, a warrant has generally not been required for a dog sniff anywhere because it’s [not a “search” for Fourth Amendment purposes](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Place). As a result, the fuzz can sniff out vehicles parked in public places more or less at will. The _Jardines_ case being considered by SCOTUS now isn’t really on point, because it involves the police entering private property (the curtilage of a residence), not a wholly public place. \*cars being mobile by nature, and any evidence in cars thus being at risk of disappearing. ---
**Author:** ![DocCathode](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/doccathode/32/18773_2.png) [@DocCathode](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DocCathode)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2013, 11:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-about-bomb-sniffing-dogs-search-warrants-and-relevant-laws/650226/10 "2013-02-13T23:36:55Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > The _Jardines_ case being considered by SCOTUS now isn’t really on point, because it involves the police entering private property (the curtilage of a residence), not a wholly public place. But the Harris case is about a car and a dog. Aren’t the Supremes considering Harris as well? ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2013, 11:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-about-bomb-sniffing-dogs-search-warrants-and-relevant-laws/650226/11 "2013-02-13T23:40:32Z")
Yes, but it would be a big surprise if they didn’t reverse. External sniffs have been pretty well established in law since a time when SCOTUS was far more liberal.