Law review article on dog sniffs in the home

Leslie A. Lunney, Has the Fourth Amendment Gone to the Dogs?: Unreasonable Expansion of Canine Sniff Doctrine to Include Sniffs of the Home, 88 Or. L. Rev. 829 (2009). Excerpt:

The Fourth Amendment, and the personal rights which it secures, have a long history. At the very core stands the right of a man to retreat into his own home and there be free from unreasonable governmental intrusion.

Police employ drug-detection dogs in public locations, such as airports, as a quick means of determining whether luggage contains contraband. In United States v. Place, the U.S. Supreme Court explained that the use of drug-detection dogs to sniff luggage in a public location was not a “search” under the Fourth Amendment because of the accuracy and limited intrusiveness of the canine sniff technique. The Place Court likely reached this conclusion because the background understanding of the day was that detection dogs were the ideal sensing tool because, in the rare case of a mistake, the dog’s error was actually a false negative. Therefore, any mistake by a drug-detection dog worked to the benefit of the luggage owner.

Despite recent evidence that drug-detection dogs are inaccurate a surprising percentage of the time, the Court in Illinois v. Caballes extended the warrantless use of the canine sniff technique to a lawfully stopped vehicle. The impact of the Caballes decision has been felt far beyond vehicle sniffs, however. Lower courts have taken the Place and Caballes decisions as a signal that canine sniffs are per se nonsearches and that it is therefore permissible to conduct suspicionless canine sniffs of homes. Without a warrant requirement, or even a suspicion …

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.