Drug-Sniffing Dogs Challenge US Privacy Rights

The United States Supreme Court, in Florida v. Jardines (11-564), will hear submissions on whether or not a police dog’s response to detecting contraband is sufficient grounds for a search warrant, or violates the Fourth Amendment, protection from unreasonable search and seizure, and which requires warrants to be issued on probable cause.

The trial judge ordered the police’s evidence be withheld on the basis that the dog’s sense of smell violated the accused’s right to privacy. Though the state appeals court reversed the finding, the Florida Supreme Court upheld the trial judge’s decision, finding the dog’s smell to be “a substantial government intrusion into the sanctity of the home”.

The use of “super-human” sensory aides has been tested by US courts before. Though sniffing dogs have satisfied the Fourth Amendment on a number of previous occasions, thermal imaging devices designed to detect the heat lamps associated with contraband operations were considered unconstitutional by the US Supreme Court in 2001.

It remains to be seen whether the US Supreme Court will limit its decision to the noses of dogs, or use the opportunity to set out a test applicable to a myriad of potential police tools (both natural and technological) that provide additional sensory information not available to the average officer’s senses.

For further commentary, please visit:
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Justice/2012/0106/Does-drug-dog-sniff-outside-home-violate-privacy-Supreme-Court-takes-case.-video/%28page%29/1

Volume X

Drug-Sniffing Dogs Challenge US Privacy Rights