High Court to Rule on ‘Canine Sniff’ Search

When a police dog sniffs the air to detect drugs, is it conducting a police search? The Supreme Court on Monday said that it would decide.

The Constitution forbids “unreasonable searches” by the police, and the high court in the past has said officers may not search a car for drugs unless they have reason to suspect the motorist is breaking the law.

In November, the Illinois Supreme Court threw out drug charges against a motorist who was stopped for speeding on Interstate 80. After one officer stopped the car, a second police officer arrived and circled the car with a “drug-detection dog.”

When the dog smelled something in the trunk, the officer opened it and found marijuana inside. The motorist, Ray Caballes, was convicted and sentenced to 12 years in prison.

In reversing his conviction, the Illinois court in a 4-3 decision said this “canine sniff” amounted to an unjustified search.

On Monday, however, the Supreme Court said it would hear the state’s appeal in Illinois vs. Caballes.

State prosecutors asked the high court to rule that a dog sniffing the air does not amount to a search.

“A canine sniff is not a search under the 4th Amendment,” said Illinois Atty. Gen. Lisa Madigan in her appeal. She cited past decisions involving luggage and highway checkpoints in which the justices said the use of a drug-sniffing dog did not invalidate a search.

Moreover, a sniffing dog does not violate anyone’s right to privacy, she said, because dogs simply detect odors in the air.

“Drug-detection dogs have become an effective and widely used law enforcement tool,” she added. They have been used at airports to sniff baggage and in some schools to detect drugs in lockers and classrooms.

Despite approving comments in their past opinions, the justices have not ruled squarely on whether a sniffing dog amounts to a search by police.

In the Illinois case, the state judges said that although officers had the authority to pull over and question a speeding motorist, they did not have the authority to bring in a drug-sniffing dog to check the vehicle.

“Calling in a canine unit unjustifiably broadened the scope of an otherwise routine traffic stop into a justification,” said state Supreme Court said.

If the high court were to uphold that decision, it could limit the use of drug-sniffing dogs to situations in which the police had reason to suspect that drug laws were being violated.

If the high court disagrees and rules that the use of a drug-sniffing dog is not a search, the decision could give police even greater leeway in using canines as drug detectors.

The case will be heard in the fall.