K9 Sniffs Establishes Probable Cause

Street Cop Podcast

In this archive episode, Dennis answers group questions about K9 units and sniffs establishing probable cause. Recorded on 10/23/2017. US v Nurse (D.C. Cir. 1990) If the canine sniff results in a positive alert or indication that the particular piece of property contains contraband or evidence of a suspected crime, this trained Canine’s reaction elevates the reasonable suspicion to probable cause, and thus provides the necessary justification for the issuance of a search warrant or for a search under an applicable exception to the warrant requirement. Illinois v Caballes (2005) US Supreme Court As found by the trial judge prior to the appeal, the dog sniff was sufficiently reliable to establish probable cause to conduct a full-blown search of the trunk. United States v Pierce (2010)- The United States Supreme Court has consistently held “That an exterior canine sniff of a car during a lawful traffic stop does not amount to a search under the 4th Amendment. It is also well established that, looking at the totality of the circumstances, a dog’s positive alert while sniffing the exterior of the car provides an officer with probable cause.” Illinois v. Caballes - Amicus (Merits) | OSG | Department of Justice Florida v Harris 2013 US Supreme Court The question—similar to every inquiry into probable cause—is whether all the facts surrounding a dog’s alert, viewed through the lens of common sense, would make a reason- ably prudent person think that a search would reveal con- traband or evidence of a crime. A sniff is up to snuff when it meets that test… And here, Aldo’s did. If a bona fide organization has certified a dog after testing his reliabilityin a controlled setting, a court can presume (subject to any conflicting evidence offered) that the dog’s alert provides probable cause to search. The same is true, even in the absence of formal certification, if the dog has recently and successfully completed a training program that evaluatedhis proficiency in locating drugs. After all, law enforce­ment units have their own strong incentive to use effective training and certification programs, because only accuratedrug-detection dogs enable officers to locate contraband without incurring unnecessary risks or wasting limited time and resources. https://l.facebook.com/l.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.supremecourt.gov%2Fopinions%2F12pdf%2F11-817_5if6.pdf%3Ffbclid%3DIwAR3S9IGJ9tlw-cUEkeqlKXeViwjtLu717t4GxDnRQnDgv8pO4hrQwvqexo0andh=AT1i_d8pny0ccA7pr8cqwqj1o9KHUqMrjptXiAvVHq7f6ivaESlYWpz10d5Gyi1HPhCgELEXJDEEfxVq-GDOAwHkCpsJgj445-w_-bMPNE3H0obypRxl9WGO6sdcLYJEBpta3Zy6K0ayKDGo3gand__tn__=-UK-R (https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/11-817_5if6.pdf) State of NJ v. Cancel 1992 We agree that the dog's positive reaction to defendant's suitcase and the discrepancy between her name and the name on her ticket gave the police probable cause to arrest her and obtain a warrant to search the suitcase.(Referring to a US Supreme Court Decision) See Florida v. Royer, *434 460 U.S. 491, 506, 103 S. Ct. 1319, 1329, 75 L. Ed. 2d 229, 242 (1983) (had police used dog to sniff defendant's luggage "a positive result would have resulted in his justifiable arrest on probable cause"). State v. Cancel :: 1992 :: New Jersey Superior Court, Appellate Division - Published Opinions Decisions :: New Jersey Case Law :: New Jersey Law :: US Law :: Justia 1. GENERAL RULE: A mere inquiry needs NO constitutional justification. A law enforcement officer needs no constitutional justification to approach an individual on the street or in another public place and ask if the individual is willing to answer some questions, and to ask the individual questions if he is willing to listen. See Florida v. Royer, 103 S. Ct. 1319 (1983.); State v. Davis, 104 N.J. 490 (1986). 1. GENERAL RULE: A mere inquiry needs NO constitutional justification. A law enforcement officer needs no constitutional justification to approach an individual on the street or in another public...