Section 6.17 Drug Dogs

• Library: DWI 2014

A drug dog sniff is not a search for Fourth Amendment purposes. United States v. Morales–Zamora,914 F.2d 200 (10^th Cir. 1990) (citing United States v. Place,462 U.S. 696 (1983)). In Place, the Court treated a canine sniff by a well-trained narcotics-detection dog as unique because it “discloses only the presence or absence of narcotics, a contraband item.” Place,462 U.S. at 707; see alsoCity ofIndianapolis v. Edmond,531 U.S. 32, 40 (2000); State v. Joyce, 885 S.W.2d 751, 755 (Mo. App. S.D. 1994).

A trained drug-detection dog’s alert provides probable cause for a search of a vehicle. Probable cause is a flexible, common-sense standard evaluated with a totality of the circumstances test. Fla. v. Harris, 133 S. Ct. 1050 (2013).

At a suppression hearing to determine whether the dog’s alert is reliable for probable cause purposes, evidence that the dog has been trained and tested in the dog’s ability to detect drugs, or has been tested and found reliable by a certification process, will suffice to establish that the dog is reliable. Id. at 1052.

A probable-cause hearing focusing on a dog’s alert should proceed much like any other, with the court allowing the parties to make their best case and evaluating the totality of the circumstances. If the State has produced proof from controlled settings that a dog performs reliably in detecting drugs, and the defendant has not contested that showing, the court should find probable cause. Id. at...