Dog Sniffs:
The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari on the question of whether the Fourth Amendment required reasonable, articulable suspicion to justify using a drug-detection dog to sniff a vehicle during a legitimate traffic stop. The state trial court concluded that the duration of the stop was entirely justified by the traffic offense and the ordinary inquiries incident to such a stop. The state supreme court concluded that because the canine sniff was performed without any specific and articulable facts to suggest drug activity, the use of the dog unjustifiably enlarged the scope of a routine traffic stop into a drug investigation. The U.S. Supreme Court held that the use of a well-trained narcotics-detection dog--one that did not expose noncontraband items that otherwise would have remained hidden from public view--during a lawful traffic stop, generally did not implicate legitimate privacy interests. The dog sniff was performed on the exterior of respondent's car while he was lawfully seized for a traffic violation. Any intrusion on respondent's privacy expectations did not rise to the level of a constitutionally cognizable infringement. Illinois v. Caballes, 543 U.S. 405 (2005).
The case names are links to the cases in Google Scholar which is a free source. Clicking on the case name will take you directly to the case in the current window or another option is right clicking and choosing to open in a new tab or window.
· Muehler v. Mena, 544 US 93 (2005)
· Indianapolis v. Edmond, 531 US 32 (2000)
· United States v. Place, 462 US 696 (1983)
· Kyllo v. United States, 533 US 27 (2001)
