NCJ Number
168771
Journal
The Advocate Volume: 18 Issue: 1 Dated: (January 1996) Pages: 76-79
Date Published
1996
Length
4 pages
Annotation
Law enforcement agencies are increasingly using dogs to detect the presence of drugs, and the trend has received considerable impetus from a series of court decisions holding that a dog sniff is not a search.
Abstract
The ruling in United States v. Place, supra, indicates the use of a sniffer dog in and of itself does not constitute a search. However, entering an individual's vehicle or home because the dog has allegedly alerted to the presence of drugs is definitely a search. The risk that the mere alert or positive reaction of a dog will become routinely sufficient to establish probable cause in justifying the arrest and search of persons in public places poses a serious threat to the criminal justice system. The truth is that dogs alert for many reasons that may or may not indicate the presence of drugs. Several courts have also recognized that sniffer dogs are not capable of distinguishing between an odor emanating from drugs and residual odor left by drugs no longer present. In addition, unprofessional handling of a dog may cause a false positive alert. Several cases reveal the fallacy of the U.S. Supreme Court's uncritical assumption that a dog sniff discloses only the presence or absence of drugs. Perhaps the most significant problem associated with the use of sniffer dogs involves their extremely sensitive olfactory sense and the ubiquity of contaminated items in contemporary society, particularly guns and money. Another problem is that a dog handler can compromise a dog's objectivity through voice or physical cues. The defense bar needs to litigate contentious issues associated with the use of sniffer dogs in order to educate the bench.