Washington: The US Supreme Court yesterday limited the ability of police to use a trained dog to sniff around the outside of a home for illegal drugs that might be inside.
By a 5-4 vote, the court said the use by law enforcement authorities of trained police dogs to investigate a home and its immediate surroundings was a “search” within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment of the US Constitution, and required
a warrant.
“A police officer not armed with a warrant may approach a home and knock, precisely because that is no more than any private citizen might do,” Justice Antonin Scalia wrote for the majority.
“But introducing a trained police dog to explore the area around the home in hopes of discovering incriminating evidence is something else,” he added. “There is no customary invitation to
do that.”
For purposes of the Fourth Amendment, Scalia said, “the home is first among equals.”
The decision upheld a 2011 ruling by the Florida Supreme Court suppressing evidence uncovered at Joelis Jardines’ home with the help of Franky, a chocolate Labrador retriever with a strong record of sniffing out drug stashes.
Howard Blumberg, a public defender who argued Jardines’ appeal, said he was pleased by the ruling. “It’s a very important decision for all citizens, because it helps ensure their right of privacy in the places where they live,” he said in a phone interview.
Gregory Garre, a former US solicitor general who argued Florida’s appeal, did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
Franky’s handler, Detective Douglas Bartelt, had let the dog smell near the base of the front door of the home near Miami after receiving an anonymous tip about marijuana growing inside.
Only after the dog sat down, signalling an “alert” that something was amiss, did the police obtain a warrant to search inside.
The tip proved accurate and more than 25 pounds (11.3 kilogrammes) of marijuana were found inside, leading to Jardines’ arrest. Blumberg said Jardines is now in a Florida state prison on unrelated charges, but that yesterday’s decision ends the case stemming from the dog’s search.
The decision is the court’s second this term addressing whether law enforcement authorities complied with the Fourth Amendment in obtaining drug evidence based on a sniffer dog’s “alert.”
On February 19, the court had unanimously allowed the search of a pickup truck, saying the handler of a dog that had signalled the presence of drug ingredients inside could reasonably believe that the dog was reliable.
REUTERS
