Abstract

http://ssrn.com/abstract=2148500
 


 



Has the Fourth Amendment Gone to the Dogs?: Unreasonable Expansion of Canine Sniff Doctrine to Include Sniffs of the Home


Leslie A. Shoebotham


Loyola University New Orleans College of Law

February 18, 2009

88 Oregon Law Review 829 (2009)
Loyola New Orleans Law Research Paper No. 2009-05

Abstract:     
This Article argues that a canine drug-detection sniff of a private home is a “search” under the Fourth Amendment because the sniff is a sense-enhancing tool that provides police information about a home’s interior. Scientific research now establishes that drug-detection dogs do not alert to contraband, but instead to break-down products of the illegal drug — decomposition odor constituents that are in no way illegal or even unique to contraband. Therefore, a positive canine sniff produces nothing more than an inference that contraband is also present; sense-enhanced police inferencing that is analogous to the technology-assisted inferencing about a home’s interior that the Court rejected in Kyllo v. United States, 533 U.S. 27 (2001), and United States v. Karo, 468 U.S. 705 (1984). Drug-detection dogs are “natural” technological aids to law enforcement — based on the extensive scientific research conducted to improve canine drug-detection training and to develop breeding and cloning programs that result in detection dogs with enhanced drug-detection capabilities — which implicate Kyllo’s concerns regarding “advancing technology” used to infer the existence of contraband inside a private home. Further, canine home-sniffs are more intrusive than ordinary “knock and talks” with human officers because (1) detection dogs are often selected for the intimidation that they produce; (2) law enforcement has a long history of using dogs to oppress people of color; and (3) dogs are considered unclean to members of some religions. A canine drug-detection sniff of a private home must be supported by a dog-sniff warrant issued on the basis of probable cause to perform the sniff, not probable cause to search physically the premises.

Number of Pages in PDF File: 76

Keywords: Canine Sniff Doctrine, Fourth Amendment, search and seizure

Accepted Paper Series





Download This Paper

Date posted: September 24, 2012 ; Last revised: September 27, 2012

Suggested Citation

Shoebotham, Leslie A., Has the Fourth Amendment Gone to the Dogs?: Unreasonable Expansion of Canine Sniff Doctrine to Include Sniffs of the Home (February 18, 2009). 88 Oregon Law Review 829 (2009); Loyola New Orleans Law Research Paper No. 2009-05. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2148500

Contact Information

Leslie A. Shoebotham (Contact Author)
Loyola University New Orleans College of Law ( email )
7214 St. Charles Ave., Box 901
Campus Box 901
New Orleans, LA 70118
United States
Feedback to SSRN


Paper statistics
Abstract Views: 452
Downloads: 96
Download Rank: 167,410

© 2014 Social Science Electronic Publishing, Inc. All Rights Reserved.  FAQ   Terms of Use   Privacy Policy   Copyright   Contact Us
This page was processed by apollo3 in 0.360 seconds