Warrants and dog searches
By a disturbingly slim 5-4 majority, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled Tuesday police cannot bring a drug-sniffing police dog onto a suspect’s property to look for evidence without first getting a search warrant.
The ruling upholds a Florida Supreme Court ruling throwing out evidence seized in the search of Joelis Jardines’ Miami-area house. That search was based on an alert by Franky the drug dog from outside the closed front door.
Writing for the majority, Justice Antonin Scalia said an American has the right to be free from the government’s gaze inside their home and in the area surrounding it. “The police cannot, without a warrant based on probable cause, hang around on the lawn or in the side garden, trawling for evidence and perhaps peering into the windows of the home,” Scalia wrote for the majority.
The four dissenting justices argued police with their dogs had as much right to proceed up the walkway to the porch as a mailman. But Justice Scalia answered, “We think a typical person would find it ‘a cause for great alarm’ to find a stranger snooping about his front porch with or without a dog.”
The ruling is correct, backing down to a limited extent some of the absurd violations of Americans’ rights which have multiplied in pursuit of the unwinnable “War on Drugs.” But Tuesday’s result leaves in place widespread court permission for use of “drug-sniffing dogs” in traffic stops, at airports, and so on.
Searching for explosives at airports may be a public-safety exception, but allowing police to bypass the search warrant requirement in mere pursuit of contraband eviscerates the Constitution.
As commentator Radley Balko points out at http://tinyurl.com/b92rcgx, such deference to the supposed expertise of drug dogs only demonstrates that the current Supreme Court membership “is woefully lacking experience in the actual practice of criminal law.” The court hasn’t had a justice with any real criminal defense experience since Thurgood Marshall retired in 1992.
Even their handlers know a drug dog can’t smell most drugs. Yes, marijuana has a distinctive odor, but if purified cocaine, heroin, and other injectable drugs give off any smell, it’s generally the lingering traces of chemicals used in their illicit manufacture.
That means a “drug dog” could alert on a car where someone has recently spilled vinegar, mimicking the acetic acid produced as a by-product of drug manufacture.
And this leaves aside the fact that courts usually have only the handler’s word that a dog “alerted,” at all. The dog can’t be cross-examined and is hardly ever required to demonstrate its talents for a jury.
The fallibility of the dogs has been proven repeatedly. In a survey of drug dogs used by police departments in suburban Chicago last year, the Chicago Tribune found that when a police dog alerted to the presence of drugs during a traffic stop, a subsequent search turned up narcotics just 44 percent of the time.
Dogs don’t racially profile, Mr. Balko notes, but dogs want to please their handlers. Whether consciously or not, their handlers may convey through body language an increased suspicion of certain suspects.
When Lisa Lit, a neurologist and former dog handler at the University of California-Davis, brought 18 police dog-and-handler teams into a church and told them to expect to find hidden drugs or explosives — sometimes packaged in red paper — the dogs falsely alerted in 123 of the 144 total searches, even though no drugs or explosives were present.
It was the handlers who were fooled, not the dogs: The dogs were less likely to give a false alert to a package of unwrapped sausages than to a red-wrapped package that only the handler knew to look for.
Dogs have great noses, and most canine officers do their best, but these failure rates indicate the “science” of canine drug detection is about as reliable as some TV psychic. Searches require warrants that require sworn affidavits setting forth probable cause. If we can’t win the drug war without substituting a Pollyannish faith in the magical power of dogs, let’s call the whole thing off.
This editorial appeared March 29 in the Las Vegas Review-Journal.
Rules for posting comments
Comments posted below are from readers. In no way do they represent the view of Oahu Publishing Inc. or this newspaper. This is a public forum.
Comments may be monitored for inappropriate content but the newspaper is under no obligation to do so. Comment posters are solely responsible under the Communications Decency Act for comments posted on this Web site. Oahu Publishing Inc. is not liable for messages from third parties.
IP and email addresses of persons who post are not treated as confidential records and will be disclosed in response to valid legal process.
Do not post:
- Potentially libelous statements or damaging innuendo.
- Obscene, explicit, or racist language.
- Copyrighted materials of any sort without the express permission of the copyright holder.
- Personal attacks, insults or threats.
- The use of another person's real name to disguise your identity.
- Comments unrelated to the story.
If you believe that a commenter has not followed these guidelines, please click the FLAG icon below the comment.