Canine Sniffs and Policing the Drug War

• Published date: 01 December 2010
• Author: Durant Frantzen
• Date: 01 December 2010
• DOI: 10.1177/0734016810363785
• Subject Matter: Articles

Canine Sniffs and Policing the

Drug War

Durant Frantzen

1

Abstract

The war on drugs has resulted in numerous policing reforms, partly a function of policy established

through the court system. In Illinois v. Caballes (2005), the Supreme Court held that a canine sniff of a

vehicle’s exterior is not a ‘‘search,’’ but acknowledged that a prolonged detention could result in a

Fourth Amendment violation. This study examines the universe of federal appellate court decisions

involving canine sniffs postdating the Caballes decision—a period spanning more than 4 years. Results

show that court decisions have largely focused on motorist stops, while only a minority of cases has

involved canine sniffs of residences. Additionally, courts have usually held that a canine sniff occurring

during a prolonged vehicle stop is not an unreasonable seizure. However, in limited contexts police

questioning and the extent of the roadside detention can result in a Fourth Amendment violation.

Although one’s home is generally afforded the highest level of constitutional protection, appellate

courts have ruled that canine sniffs of residences are less intrusive than technologically assisted

searches. On the whole, findings reveal an overall suppression rate of 10%. Policy implications

surrounding the use of canines in vehicle stops and residential searches are addressed.

Keywords

police, canine, drug, search

Introduction

The Fourth Amendment states that ‘‘the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses,

papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated.’’ The purpose

of this article is to discuss the implications of Illinois v. Caballes (2005), a Supreme Court decision

holding that a canine sniff during a ‘‘routine’’ traffic stop is not a search for Fourth Amendment pur-

poses. Courts have traditionally construed canine sniffs as impervious to Fourth Amendment scru-

tiny, but they have continued to face more challenges involving routine traffic stops relative to any

other Fourth Amendment issue (LaFave, 2004). Justice Souter, in his dissenting opinion, opined that

‘‘the infallible dog, however, is a creature of legal fiction’’ (Caballes, p. 405). Police decision mak-

ing as it relates to the use of canines during vehicle stops frequently hinges on facts and circum-

stances that distinguish routine encounters from those with a more investigative focus.

1

With

respect to the Fourth Amendment, the ultimate task of the judicial system is to balance privacy

1

Texas A&M University-San Antonio, USA

Corresponding Author:

Durant Frantzen, Texas A&M University-San Antonio, 1450 Gillette Blvd., San Antonio, TX 78224, USA

Email: durant.frantzen@tamuk.edu

Criminal Justice Review

35(4) 438-452

ª2010 Georgia State University

Reprints and permission:

sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

DOI: 10.1177/0734016810363785

http://cjr.sagepub.com

438