The war on drugs has resulted in numerous policing reforms, partly a function of policy established through the court system. In Illinois v. Caballes (2005), the Supreme Court held that a canine sniff of a vehicle’s exterior is not a ‘‘search,’’ but acknowledged that a prolonged detention could result in a Fourth Amendment violation. This study examines the universe of federal appellate court decisions involving canine sniffs postdating the Caballes decision—a period spanning more than 4 years. Results show that court decisions have largely focused on motorist stops, while only a minority of cases has involved canine sniffs of residences. Additionally, courts have usually held that a canine sniff occurring during a prolonged vehicle stop is not an unreasonable seizure. However, in limited contexts police questioning and the extent of the roadside detention can result in a Fourth Amendment violation. Although one’s home is generally afforded the highest level of constitutional protection, appellate courts have ruled that canine sniffs of residences are less intrusive than technologically assisted searches. On the whole, findings reveal an overall suppression rate of 10%. Policy implications surrounding the use of canines in vehicle stops and residential searches are addressed.
Aristotelidis, J.G. ( 2003). Trained canines at the U.S.-Mexico border region: A review of the current fifth circuit law and a call for change. St. Mary’s Law Review on Minority Issues, 5, 227-228.
2.
Ashley, J., Billinge, S., & Hemmens, C. ( 2007). Who let the dogs out?Criminal Justice Studies, 20, 177-196.
3.
Basch, A. ( 2006). Sniffing out the problems: A casenote study of the analysis and effects of the Supreme Court’s decision in Illinois v. Caballes. St. Louis University Public Law Review, 25, 417-444.
4.
Bell, M. ( 2006). Caballes, place, and economic rin-tin-tincentives: The effect of canine sniff jurisprudence on the demand for and development of search technology. Brooklyn Law Review, 72, 279-307.
5.
Berkemer v. McCarty, 468 U.S. 420 (1984).
6.
Brown, B. ( 2005). Controlling crime and delinquency in the schools: An exploratory study of student perceptions of school security measures. Journal of School Violence, 4, 105-125.
7.
Brown, M.F. ( 2001). Criminal investigation: Law and practice (2nd ed.). Boston: Butterworth-Heinemann .
8.
Campbell, A., Berk, R.A., & Fyfe, J.J. ( 1998). Deployment of violence: The Los Angeles police department’s use of dogs. Evaluation Review, 22, 535-561.
9.
Connors, E.F., & Nugent, H. ( 1990). Street-level narcotics enforcement. Washington, DC: U.S. Bureau of Justice Assistance.
10.
Customs and Border Protection (2008). U.S. Customs and Border Protection Canine Enforcement Program. Retrieved April 7, 2009, from http://www.cbp.gov/xp/cgov/newsroom/fact_sheets/k_enforce/fact_sheet_canines.xml
11.
Delaware v. Prouse, 440 U.S. 648 (1979).
12.
Engel, R.S., Tillyer, R., & Cherkauskas, J. (2007). Understanding best search and seizure practices: Final report. Submitted to the Ohio State Highway Patrol , Office of the Superintendent, Columbus, OH.
13.
Falk, K. ( 2006). Four legs, a tail and lots of heart: Police K-9s really are something special. Law Enforcement Technology, 33, 48, 50, 58.
14.
Florida v. Royer, 460 U.S. 491 (1983).
15.
Foster, J.A. ( 1992). Narcotics interdiction at the street level. Law Enforcement Technology, 19, 20-21.
16.
Hickey, E.R., & Hoffman, P.B. ( 2003). To bite or not to bite: Canine apprehensions in a large, suburban police department. Journal of Criminal Justice, 31, 147-154.
17.
Illinois v. Caballes, 543 U.S. 405 (2005).
18.
International Association of Chiefs of Police. ( 1992). Law enforcement canines. The training key (No. 421). Arlington, VA : Author.
19.
Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967).
20.
Kessler, D.K. ( 2009). Free to leave? An empirical look at the Fourth Amendment’s seizure standard. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology , 99, 51-88.
21.
Kyllo v. United States, 533 U.S. 27 (2001).
22.
LaFave, W.R. ( 2004). The ‘‘routine traffic stop’’ from start to finish: Too much ‘‘routine,’’ not enough fourth amendment. Michigan Law Review, 102, 1843.
23.
LaFave, W.R. ( 2009). The smell of herring: A critique of the supreme court’s latest assault on the exclusionary rule. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 99, 757.
24.
Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 (1961).
25.
Maryland v. Wilson, 519 U.S. 408 (1997).
26.
Mesloh, C., Henych, M., & Wolf, R. ( 2002). Sniff test: Utilization of the law enforcement canine in the seizure of paper currency. Journal of Forensic Identification , 52, 704-724.
27.
Muehler v. Mena, 544 U.S. 93 (2005).
28.
Nadler, J. ( 2002). No need to shout: Bus sweeps and the psychology of coercion . Supreme Court Law Review, 200, 153-201.
29.
Office of National Drug Control Policy (2007 ). National Southwest Border Counternarcotics Strategy: Unclassified Summary. Washington, DC: Author .
30.
Ohio v. Robinette, 519 U.S. 33 (1996).
31.
Oliver v. U.S., 466 U.S. 170 (1984).
32.
Payne, B.K., & Gainey, R.R. ( 2005). Drugs and policing: A scientific perspective. Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas.
33.
Peals v. Terre Haute, 535 F.3d 621 (7th Cir. 2008).
34.
Pillow v. City of Lawrenceburg, U.S. LEXIS 22737 (6th Cir. 2008).
35.
Silverthorne Lumber Co. v. U.S., 251 U.S. 385 (1920).
36.
State v. Guillen, 213 P.3d 230 (Ariz. App. 2009).
37.
Smith, M. ( 2009). Going to the dogs: Evaluating the proper standard for narcotic detector dog searches of private residences. Houston Law Review, 46, 103-133.
