The Supreme Court on Tuesday made it relatively simple for police to search vehicles after a trained police dog alerts to the smell of narcotics.
Justice Elena Kagan, writing for the unanimous court, said searches generally would be upheld if “a bona fide organization has certified a dog after testing his reliability in a controlled setting,” or if “the dog has recently and successfully completed a training program that evaluated his proficiency in locating drugs.”
The decision (.pdf) in the closely watched case reversed a Florida Supreme Court decision that had made it tougher to admit evidence discovered by drug dogs. Two dozen states had urged the justices to reverse Florida’s top court, saying “drug-detecting canines are one of the essential weapons in the states’ arsenal to combat this illegal traffic.” (.pdf)
The ruling stems from one of two cases testing drug-sniffing dogs that are on the high court’s docket this term. The other, in which an opinion is awaiting, concerns the novel question of whether judges may issue search warrants for private residences when a drug-sniffing dog outside the home reacts as if it smells drugs inside.
The case decided Tuesday concerned a Florida Supreme Court decision in 2011 invalidating a search that found meth-making chemicals in a vehicle a man named Clayton Harris was driving. Florida’s top court suppressed the evidence that was seized based on an alert by Aldo, a Labrador retriever.
The Florida court said an alert by the truck’s door handle was insufficient evidence by itself to search Harris’ truck. Florida’s high court said other evidence was required, like the dog’s track record, and records regarding the handler’s and the dog’s background and training.
That was simply too high of a bar, Kagan wrote.
“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 reasonably prudent person think that a search would reveal contraband or evidence of a crime. A sniff is up to snuff when it meets that test.
The Florida top court had ruled that “the fact that the dog has been trained and certified is simply not enough to establish probable cause.”
To be sure, the U.S. Supreme Court did spell out that defendants must have “an opportunity to challenge such evidence of a dog’s reliability, whether by cross-examining the testifying officer or by introducing his own fact or expert witnesses.”
The nation’s top court added that, while alerts of trained dogs are generally enough for probable cause, defendants also “may contest the adequacy of a certification or training program.”
Drug-Dog Alerts Are 'Up to Snuff,' Supreme Court Says
This article
Drug-Dog Alerts Are 'Up to Snuff,' Supreme Court Says
can be opened in url
http://spraynewstar.blogspot.com/2013/02/drug-dog-alerts-are-to-snuff-supreme.html
Drug-Dog Alerts Are 'Up to Snuff,' Supreme Court Says
