TribLIVE

| USWorld

 
Larger text Larger text Smaller text Smaller text | Order Photo Reprints

Supreme Court considers role of drug-sniffing dogs in home search

Email Newsletters

Click here to sign up for one of our email newsletters.

Daily Photo Galleries

'American Coyotes' Series

Traveling by Jeep, boat and foot, Tribune-Review investigative reporter Carl Prine and photojournalist Justin Merriman covered nearly 2,000 miles over two months along the border with Mexico to report on coyotes — the human traffickers who bring illegal immigrants into the United States. Most are Americans working for money and/or drugs. This series reports how their operations have a major impact on life for residents and the environment along the border — and beyond.

By McClatchy Newspapers
Wednesday, Oct. 31, 2012, 7:24 p.m.
 

WASHINGTON — Supreme Court justices appeared ready on Wednesday to adjust the legal leash on drug-sniffing dogs in two high-profile cases arising out of Florida.

With a battery of pointed questions, justices voiced skepticism about a Florida Supreme Court ruling that imposed strict criteria for determining when a dog is qualified to help make a drug bust. At the same time, court conservatives joined liberals in suggesting that a canine sniffing at the front door of a suspected drug house may be a search that triggers constitutional protections.

“It seems to me crucial that this officer went onto the portion of the house as to which there is privacy, and used a means of discerning what was in that house that should not have been available,” Justice Antonin Scalia said at one point.

The two cases heard separately on Wednesday morning will help shape law enforcement agencies' growing canine dependency. Twenty-four states — including Pennsylvania, Texas, Washington and Idaho — have sided with Florida law enforcement officials.

While tracking questions can lead court observers astray, a majority of the justices who spoke Wednesday sounded protective of the privacy inherent in a home. In a previous case that involved thermal imagers used to locate household marijuana-growing operations, the court said obtaining details of the home's interior was a search that required a warrant under the Fourth Amendment. Similar reasoning could apply to a dog's finely tuned nose, some justices hinted Wednesday.

“Doesn't that mean that what's in your home that's not visible to the public has an expectation of privacy as well?” Justice Sonia Sotomayor asked attorney Gregory C. Garre, who's representing Florida in both cases.

Garre's response that people cannot expect privacy “when it comes to contraband” was flatly rejected by Justice Anthony Kennedy, who's a frequent swing vote on close decisions. Kennedy and Scalia, both Republican appointees, joined Sotomayor and several other Democratic appointees in repeatedly challenging Florida's case.

Justice Samuel Alito and Chief Justice John Roberts Jr. sounded sympathetic to the state's cause.

“You may have an expectation of privacy in the marijuana plants, but you don't have an expectation of privacy in the odor, because you're emitting it out into the world, and it's the odor that was detected,” Roberts reasoned.

Subscribe today! Click here for our subscription offers.

 

 


Show commenting policy

Most-Read Stories

  1. Comets hold life building blocks
  2. Small business hangs on fate of Export-Import Bank
  3. Marte’s 2 fine defensive plays rescue Pirates in victory over Reds
  4. Armstrong inmate escapee charged with murdering family matriarch
  5. Pirates trade for Dodgers 1B/OF Morse, Mariners LHP Happ
  6. Steelers OLB coach Porter teaches as passionately as he played
  7. Connellsville diners can again ‘Savor the Avenue’
  8. Rossi: Nothing huge, but Huntington helped Bucs
  9. Dawson Grange Community Fair stands out by staying free to attend
  10. Captured Armstrong jail escapee Crissman’s criminal history
  11. Inside The Steelers: LB Williams dominates backs-on-backers drill at Latrobe Memorial Stadium