UNIVERSITY OF THE DISTRICT OF - UDC Law Review

More documents

Recommendations

Info

een the head high, tracking the airborne odor. He began tracking that airborne odor by bracketing and tracking back and forth. Q. What exactly is bracketing A. Bracketing is a technique that the dog uses once he comes to an odor—which is basically you can think of it as a cloud of odor. Once he gets into that cloud of odor, he is trained to go to the strongest point. We call that source. So, he is bracketing back and forth, back and forth, within the cone of odor to determine the strongest source. In this particular residence source for him was the base of the door. Q. And is Detective Pedraja observing this as well You can’t speak for him A. Yeah, I—to be honest with you, all I’m doing is concentrating on the dog, watching the dog’s head movements, his body postures, whence he is indicating towards me. Q. Detective, your dog is on a leash at that point A. Oh, absolutely. Q. How long is that leash A. It’s approximately six feet. And then you have the length of my arm, so you can assume from there. Q. Okay. Once the dog began—what is it the dog did that told you he had an alert A. Okay. He immediately told me he had an alert when he began tracking that odor. Now I know he is in odor and he needs to find source. So, what I do is I get back as far as I can. I let him have the full six feet of the leash plus whatever safe distance I can give him without running off in order for him to determine where source is. For example, if I don’t do that, source could be the motorcycle, it could be somewhere else other than the front door. So, in order for me to fully observe his alert and where the source is, I need to be creating as much distance as I can. 16 Often handlers will drop the leash and walk away completely. I don’t do that with him because he is a little bit wild, so I maintain control of the leash and observe him from a distance so that I can indicate where source is going to be. Q. Okay. So, once he detects a source and he is bracketing and he is doing this behavior, what is the next thing that you observe this dog do A. The final culmination of his abnormal behavior is a sitting position, and he did that immediately following the sniff at the base of the door, which indicates source to me. Q. And once Franky, your dog, did that, what did you then do A. I then pulled him off of the sit and returned to my vehicle. Q. Did you at any point in time communicate what the dog did to anybody A. Yeah, I indicated to the lead detective that there was a positive alert for the odor of narcotics. Q. And where exactly, in what direction around you, was the detective at that point A. He would have been behind me, so I passed him up in the driveway. *48 Q. Once you pulled the dog away from the door, where did you then go A. To my vehicle. With respect to the location of Detective Pedraja in relation to Detective Bartlet and Franky during the “sniff test,” Bartlet testified as follows on redirect examination at the suppression hearing: Q. Would Detective Pedraja be in front of you as you are conducting canine—I don’t even know what you would call it. .... [A.] Would he be in front of—while Franky is sniffing the door Definitely not. Q. Why not A. Because he would be obstructing his ability to perform. He would be blocking him. He would be—if he
was standing in front of the door, Franky may not be able to get to source. So he needs to be out of the way. Q. Was Detective Pedraja standing next to you A. No. Q. Why not A. Because he probably would get knocked over by Franky when Franky is spinning around trying to find source. [<strong>THE</strong> PROSECUTOR]: No further questions. After the “sniff test” was completed, Detective Bartlet and Franky left the scene to assist in another case. Detective Pedraja, after waiting at the residence for fifteen or twenty minutes, also left the scene to prepare a search warrant and to submit it to a magistrate. Federal DEA agents, however, remained behind to maintain surveillance of Jardines’ home. Pedraja obtained a search warrant later that day and returned to the scene. About an hour later, members of the Miami–Dade Police Department, Narcotics Bureau, and DEA agents executed the warrant by gaining entry to Jardines’ home through the front door. As agents entered the front door, Jardines exited through a sliding glass door at the rear of the house. He was apprehended by Special Agent Wilson of the DEA and was turned over to the Miami–Dade Police Department. He was charged with trafficking in marijuana and theft of electricity. Based on the foregoing, we conclude that the dog “sniff test” that was conducted here was an intrusive procedure. The “sniff test” was a sophisticated undertaking that was the end result of a sustained and coordinated effort by various law enforcement departments. On the scene, the procedure involved multiple police vehicles, multiple law enforcement personnel, including narcotics detectives and other officers, and an experienced dog handler and trained drug detection dog engaged in a vigorous search effort on the front porch of the residence. Tactical law enforcement personnel from various government agencies, both state and federal, were on the scene for surveillance and backup purposes. The entire on-the-scene government activity—i.e., the preparation for the “sniff test,” the test itself, and the aftermath, which culminated in the fullblown search of Jardines’ home—lasted for hours. The “sniff test” apparently took place in plain view of the general public. There was no anonymity for the resident. Such a public spectacle unfolding in a residential neighborhood will invariably entail a degree of public 17 opprobrium, humiliation and embarrassment for the resident, whether or not he or she is present at the time of the search, for such dramatic government activity in the eyes of many-neighbors, passers-by, and the public at large-will be viewed as an official accusation of crime. Cf. Place, 462 U.S. at 707, 103 S.Ct. 2637 (explaining that the dog *49 “sniff test” in that case was not a “search” within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment because it was limited in scope and was anonymous and did not subject the individual to “embarrassment and inconvenience”). And if the resident happens to be present at the time of the “sniff test,” such an intrusion into the sanctity of his or her home will generally be a frightening and harrowing experience that could prompt a reflexive or unpredictable response. Further, all the underlying circumstances that were present in the above federal “dog sniff” and “field test” cases that guaranteed objective, uniform application of those tests—i.e., the temporary seizure of luggage based on reasonable suspicion of criminal activity in Place; the temporary seizure of a vehicle in a dragnet-style stop at a drug interdiction checkpoint in Edmond; the temporary seizure of a vehicle based on a lawful traffic stop in Caballes; and the temporary seizure of a portion of the contents of a package that had been damaged in transit in Jacobsen—are absent from a warrantless “sniff test” conducted at a private residence. Unlike the objects in those cases, a private residence is not susceptible to being seized beforehand based on objective criteria. Thus, if government agents can conduct a dog “sniff test” at a private residence without any prior evidentiary showing of wrongdoing, there is simply nothing to prevent the agents from applying the procedure in an arbitrary or discriminatory manner, or based on whim and fancy, at the home of any citizen. Cf. Camara v. Mun. Court of City & Cnty. of S. F., 387 U.S. 523, 528, 87 S.Ct. 1727, 18 L.Ed.2d 930 (1967) (“The basic purpose of [the Fourth] Amendment, as recognized in countless decisions of this Court, is to safeguard the privacy and security of individuals against arbitrary invasions by governmental officials.”). Such an open-ended policy invites overbearing and harassing conduct.7 [3] In sum, a “sniff test” by a drug detection dog conducted at a private residence does not only reveal the presence of contraband, as was the case in the federal “sui generis” dog sniff cases discussed above, but it also constitutes an intrusive procedure that may expose the resident to public opprobrium, humiliation and embarrassment, and it raises the specter of arbitrary and discriminatory application. Given the special status accorded a citizen’s home under the Fourth Amendment, we conclude that a “sniff test,” such as the test that was
Page 1 and 2: UNIVERSITY OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUM
Page 3 and 4: article that appeared in the period
Page 5 and 6: incarcerated children in the Distri
Page 7 and 8: Section 3: Writing Exercise Section
Page 9 and 10: Opinion PERRY, J. 73 So.3d 34 Supre
Page 11 and 12: activities, or statements that he e
Page 13 and 14: damaged package and notified federa
Page 15: B. “Sniff Test” at a Private Ho
Page 19 and 20: justified on the basis of reasonabl
Page 21 and 22: The probable cause affidavit listed
Page 23 and 24: unwavering expectation that there w
Page 25 and 26: otherwise prompt his dog to alert.
Page 27 and 28: (quoting State v. Morsman, 394 So.2
Page 29 and 30: society recognizes as reasonable. A
Page 31 and 32: obtained through the search is not
Page 33 and 34: without implicating the Fourth Amen
Page 35 and 36: [14] The Government contends, howev
Page 37 and 38: the President and Attorney General
Page 39 and 40: nuisance. IV Blackstone, Commentari
Page 41 and 42: The other ‘eroding’ case cited
Page 43 and 44: 11 Jones v. United States, 362 U.S.
Page 45 and 46: 103 S.Ct. 2317 Supreme Court of the
Page 47 and 48: accompanying remedy. Here, for exam
Page 49 and 50: northbound on an interstate frequen
Page 51 and 52: inapplicable to the decision to iss
Page 53 and 54: L.Ed. 1879 (1949). Justice BRENNAN
Page 55 and 56: case. As the Court points out, “I
Page 57 and 58: forcefully suggest that the exclusi
Page 59 and 60: S.Ct., at 3073-3074. (WHITE, J., di
Page 61 and 62: law-enforcement officers have recog
Page 63 and 64: government enforcement agent.” Id
Page 65 and 66: advance an important underlying sub
Page 67 and 68:
Americans must be that the Court gi
Page 69 and 70:
3 In Spinelli, police officers obse
Page 71 and 72:
The only reference to Hereford’s
Page 73 and 74:
v. United States, supra; Sibron v.
Page 75 and 76:
susceptible to the interpretation t
Page 77 and 78:
8 Rugendorf v. United States, 376 U
Page 79 and 80:
104 S.Ct. 1652 Supreme Court of the
Page 81 and 82:
will not be betrayed.” United Sta
Page 83 and 84:
*126 In sum, the federal agents did
Page 85 and 86:
and that search has not left incrim
Page 87 and 88:
privacy in the presence or absence
Page 89 and 90:
surrounding the use of the techniqu
Page 91 and 92:
1437, 4 L.Ed.2d 1688 (1960); Henry
Page 93 and 94:
26 See, e.g., Michigan v. Long, 463
Page 95 and 96:
Rodriguez, 497 U.S. 177, 181, 110 S
Page 97 and 98:
how relatively warm—Kyllo was hea
Page 99 and 100:
concurring). To be sure, the homeow
Page 101 and 102:
homeowner would even care if anybod
Page 103 and 104:
4 This view comports with that of a
Page 105 and 106:
unless the dog sniff itself infring
Page 107 and 108:
probable cause to stop the car for
Page 109 and 110:
and, implicitly, the application of
Page 111 and 112:
3 Kyllo was concerned with whether
Page 113 and 114:
(500 grams and an unspecified amoun
Page 115 and 116:
authority to allow police inside th
Page 117 and 118:
AFFIRMED. We retain jurisdiction an
Page 119 and 120:
that “[t]he right of the people t
Page 121 and 122:
field” did not constitute a Fourt
Page 123 and 124:
Government’s unrestrained power t
Page 125 and 126:
y the government upon the privacy o
Page 127 and 128:
own difficulties. It involves a deg
Page 129 and 130:
search unless it is achieved by suc
Page 131 and 132:
88 Or. L. Rev. 829 Oregon Law Revie
Page 133 and 134:
hidden in open locations, such as f
Page 135 and 136:
While the Place Court’s failure t
Page 137 and 138:
location may be important in evalua
Page 139 and 140:
III Framing the Canine Home-Sniff D
Page 141 and 142:
seemingly making impermissible what
Page 143 and 144:
possessions. Without minimizing the
Page 145 and 146:
4. Even Surreptitious Canine Sniffs
Page 147 and 148:
the sniff--to the satisfaction of a
Page 149 and 150:
focused on the routineness of the a
Page 151 and 152:
6 See People v. Dunn, 564 N.E.2d 10
Page 153 and 154:
27 See Robert C. Bird, An Examinati
Page 155 and 156:
323 (Friedrich G. Barth et al. eds.
Page 157 and 158:
pre-Place decisions issued by the U
Page 159 and 160:
97 See Illinois v. Caballes, 543 U.
Page 161 and 162:
121 Id. at 37 n.4 (majority opinion
Page 163 and 164:
147 462 U.S. 696 (1983). 148 See in
Page 165 and 166:
171 Dunaway v. New York, 442 U.S. 2
Page 167 and 168:
199 As Justice Souter explained,
Page 169 and 170:
to school). 219 Cf. Katz & Golembie
Page 171 and 172:
240 See Kyllo v. United States, 533
Page 173 and 174:
263 In 2004, photographs emerged th
Page 175 and 176:
285 Id. at 1362. The story of this
Page 177 and 178:
306 But cf. Fitzgerald v. State, 86
Page 179 and 180:
328 Riley, 488 U.S. at 448 (observi
Page 181 and 182:
1 Search & Seizure § 2.3 (4th ed.)
Page 183 and 184:
establish a right to privacy therei
Page 185 and 186:
were locked and could only be opene
Page 187 and 188:
The Wright rule also should not be
Page 189 and 190:
to investigate. Noting that a metal
Page 191 and 192:
active domestic use. It housed ten
Page 193 and 194:
Ciraolo,191 involving aerial survei
Page 195 and 196:
ackyard of the building was complet
Page 197 and 198:
feet. The viewing from the helicopt
Page 199 and 200:
cases as Ciraolo, Riley and Dow man
Page 201 and 202:
premises were abandoned where all c
Page 203 and 204:
22 Young v. Harrison, 284 F.3d 863
Page 205 and 206:
37.1 McKenney v. Harrison, 635 F.3d
Page 207 and 208:
(1983); State v. Eddy, 519 A.2d 113
Page 209 and 210:
68 Dinkens v. State, 291 So.2d 122
Page 211 and 212:
eceived no answer to knock on front
Page 213 and 214:
870 (1987). In such a case, the fac
Page 215 and 216:
“Second, the agents had a legal r
Page 217 and 218:
131 United States v. Llanes, 398 F.
Page 219 and 220:
167 The reference is to the “open
Page 221 and 222:
however by fact lights were on insi
Page 223 and 224:
properly crossed defendant’s land
Page 225 and 226:
view”); State v. Merrill, 252 Neb
Page 227 and 228:
the area within the ‘curtilage’
Page 229 and 230:
is not to conclude that a search of
Page 231:
265 Such analysis was challenged by
show all

UNIVERSITY OF THE DISTRICT OF - UDC Law Review

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?