Thursday, June 21 , 2018, 12:01 pm | Overcast 65º


Diane Dimond: Police Dogs Sniffing Out Justice, But Is It Legal?

Can a dog violate your constitutional rights? That’s right, I said a dog.

No, this is not a trick question. It is borne of a law enforcement situation so serious that the state of Florida has been joined by more than 20 other states in asking the U.S. Supreme Court to render a decision on the matter.

Here’s the deal. The Supreme Court recently agreed to hear two separate cases from Florida in which police dogs, trained to sniff out illegal drugs, alerted their human handlers to the presence of drugs. The question pending before the court is: Were these drug busts conducted legally?

One instance occurred outside a private home near Miami. Officers had gotten a tip that marijuana was being grown inside the home of Joelis Jardines. After a K-9 unit Labrador retriever named Franky “alerted” at the front door, one officer waited with the dog while the other went to get a search warrant.

Inside, police found multiple pot plants. Jardines was arrested for possessing more than 25 pounds of marijuana and for illegally diverting the electricity needed to grow the plants under special lights. His lawyer argued that Jardines’ constitutional rights were violated by an illegal search and seizure. The Florida Supreme Court agreed.

The second case involved a seemingly routine traffic stop in Bristol, Fla., during which the police officer thought Clayton Harris seemed awfully sweaty and nervous. The police dog at this scene, a German shepherd named Aldo, did what is called “a free air sniff” around the outside of the truck and zeroed in on the driver’s side door handle.

Inside the vehicle, the officer found a couple hundred pseudoephedrine pills and 8,000 matches — ingredients for making methamphetamine. Harris pleaded no contest, but ultimately the Florida Supreme Court ruled against the legality of the police search, saying the state had failed to prove that Aldo the dog was a reliable drug detector or that his handler had enough experience with a K-9 partner.

That wasn’t an issue with Franky’s situation at the house in Miami. That K-9 sleuth already had almost 400 positive alerts under his collar and had helped seize about a ton of marijuana and 34 pounds of cocaine and heroin. Good boy! (Although as regular readers know, I advocate the legalization, regulation and taxation of marijuana.)

The Florida Supreme Court found a completely different problem with Franky’s actions at Jardines’ house. The state court ruled it wasn’t legal for a canine to sniff outside a home without his human getting a search warrant ahead of time. In other words, the Florida judges ruled, Franky’s very first sniff constituted a violation of the U.S. Constitution and Jardines’ Fourth Amendment rights governing search and seizure. They called it an “unreasonable government intrusion into the sanctity of the home.”

So the two questions now before the U.S. Supreme Court: How qualified must a dog be to do a legitimate sniff, and is a trained police dog allowed to sniff outside a home without a warrant?

You might think these questions are somewhat strange for our highest court in the land. They are not. In fact, the U.S. Supremes have already ruled on doggie-search issues. They previously decided it is legal for dogs to sniff luggage at airports or open containers on street corners. But right outside someone’s private home? That may turn out to be completely different in their eyes.

During the recent arguments on Franky’s and Aldo’s searches, Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Antonin Scalia had very pointed questions about home searches. Ginsburg asked Florida’s lawyer, Gregory Garre, what the next logical step might be if such police actions were allowed to continue. What would stop officers from taking their drug-sniffing dogs into neighborhoods with drug problems and then going door to door to door to try to find illegal drugs?

Scalia reminded the lawyers about the rule that police are not supposed to come within the area immediately surrounding a home in order to get a better look inside, say, with a pair of binoculars. Why, he asked, was using a dog any different?

Garre answered that the law allows a police officer to walk right up to the front door of a home, knock and talk to whomever is inside in an effort to uncover evidence of a crime. Why, he asked, is it any different if the officer has a dog come along?

There’s no telling when the high court will make its final decision on these cases. In the meantime, it is safe to say the attorneys general in more than 20 states are anxiously awaiting the final decision because, with budget and staffing cutbacks, K-9 units have become a necessary norm in police departments nationwide.

I dare say, you would be hard-pressed to find an officer who didn’t see these animals as full-fledged law enforcement partners and necessary tools in fighting crime.

Dogs also cost a whole lot less to train and employ than human beings. Wonder if the court will take that into account when making its final decision? I’m no lawyer, but I doubt there’s room in the legal discussion for any real-world considerations.

Diane Dimond is the author of Cirque Du Salahi: Be Careful Who You Trust. Click here for more information. She can be contacted at .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) or follow her on Twitter: @DiDimond.

Support Noozhawk Today

You are an important ally in our mission to deliver clear, objective, high-quality professional news reporting for Santa Barbara, Goleta and the rest of Santa Barbara County. Join the Hawks Club today to help keep Noozhawk soaring.

We offer four membership levels: $5 a month, $10 a month, $25 a month or $1 a week. Payments can be made through PayPal below, or click here for information on recurring credit-card payments.

Thank you for your vital support.

Become a Noozhawk Supporter

First name
Last name
Enter your email
Select your membership level

Payment Information

You are purchasing:

Payment Method

Pay by Credit Card:

Mastercard, Visa, American Express, Discover

Pay with Apple Pay or Google Pay:

Noozhawk partners with Stripe to provide secure invoicing and payments processing.

  • Ask
  • Vote
  • Investigate
  • Answer

Noozhawk Asks: What’s Your Question?

Welcome to Noozhawk Asks, a new feature in which you ask the questions, you help decide what Noozhawk investigates, and you work with us to find the answers.

Here’s how it works: You share your questions with us in the nearby box. In some cases, we may work with you to find the answers. In others, we may ask you to vote on your top choices to help us narrow the scope. And we’ll be regularly asking you for your feedback on a specific issue or topic.

We also expect to work together with the reader who asked the winning questions to find the answer together. Noozhawk’s objective is to come at questions from a place of curiosity and openness, and we believe a transparent collaboration is the key to achieve it.

The results of our investigation will be published here in this Noozhawk Asks section. Once or twice a month, we plan to do a review of what was asked and answered.

Thanks for asking!

Click Here to Get Started >

Reader Comments

Noozhawk is no longer accepting reader comments on our articles. Click here for the announcement. Readers are instead invited to submit letters to the editor by emailing them to [email protected]. Please provide your full name and community, as well as contact information for verification purposes only.

Daily Noozhawk

Subscribe to Noozhawk's A.M. Report, our free e-Bulletin sent out every day at 4:15 a.m. with Noozhawk's top stories, hand-picked by the editors.

Sign Up Now >