UNIVERSITY OF THE DISTRICT OF - UDC Law Review

263 In 2004, photographs emerged that depicted military-trained German shepherds that were used to intimidate prisoners at Abu
Ghraib prison in Afghanistan as an interrogation strategy. See Bob Deans & Mike Williams, ‘Disgust and Disbelief’: Bush Views
Prison Abuse Photos, Atlanta J. Const. May 11, 2004, at 1A (“The Washington Post, which last week first published photos of a
female U.S. soldier holding a leash attached to the neck of a naked Iraqi prisoner, printed a picture in Monday’s editions of a naked
detainee pinned against cell bars as a pair of guard dogs stood threatening him from both sides.”).
264 Islamic law, known as Shari’a, is derived primarily from the Qur’an and various collections of oral tradition of the Prophet
Muhammad documented in the hadith. See generally Richard C. Martin, Islamic Studies: A History of Religions Approach (2d ed.
1996). While there are no statements concerning dogs in the Qur’an, numerous references to dogs appear in the hadith. Various of
the hadith report that Allah’s messenger, the prophet Muhammad, commanded that dogs were to be killed, except for those used
for hunting and protecting herds and farmland. See, e.g., Sahih Bukhari, Vol. 4, Book 54, Nos. 531, 539-42; Sahih Muslim, Book
10, Nos. 3814-24. Due to their uncleanliness, the hadith warn that angels will not enter a home where a dog is kept, see, e.g., Sahih
Bukhari, Vol. 4, Book 54, No. 448, that the proximity of a dog to a praying person annuls the person’s prayers, see, e.g., Sahih
Bukhari, Vol. 1, Book 9, No. 490, and that keeping a dog as a pet results in a reduction of the keeper’s heavenly rewards, see, e.g.,
Sahih Bukhari, Vol. 3, Book 39, No. 516. For more discussion, see M. Muhsin Khan’s translation of Sahih Bukhari at http://
www.usc.edu/schools/college/crcc/engagement/resources/texts/muslim/hadith/bukhari/, and Abdul Hamid Siddiqui’s translation of
Sahih Muslim at http:// www.usc.edu/schools/college/crcc/engagement/resources/texts/muslim/hadith/muslim/. Important to the
canine home-sniff issue, an item that has become impure due to contact with a dog must be purified by washing the item seven
times, and then by rubbing it with earth the eighth time. See, e.g., Sahih Muslim, Book 2, No. 0551; Evan Thomas, Into Thin Air,
Newsweek, Sept. 3, 2007, at 24 (observing that American soldiers “continually make cultural blunders, like using canine units to
search people’s homes [in view of the fact that] dogs are considered unclean in Muslim culture”).
265 See, e.g., Sniffer Dogs Unclean, N.Z. Herald (Mar. 6, 2006) (“Hindu priests cleansed a shrine to Indian independence leader
Mahatma Gandhi after a visit by [President George W.] Bush, the Hindustan Times reported yesterday. It wasn’t the US leader
who offended them, but the sniffer-dogs that scoured the area ahead of his visit.”).
266 See Stuart MacDonald, Sniffer Dogs to Wear ‘Muslim’ Bootees, Sunday Times (London), July 6, 2008, at 1. The use of such
“bootees,” of course, fails to address the primary concern to many Muslims, which is the canine’s saliva. Cf. Richard Peppiatt, It’s
P.C. Madness; Muslim Raid Dog Bootees, Daily Star (U.K.), July 7, 2008, at 25.
267 Cf. Langley v. State, 735 So. 2d 606, 607 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1999) (finding that a reasonable person would not feel free to leave a
“knock-and-talk” encounter when confronted by six officers and a “K-9 dog”).
268 See, e.g., George S. Steffen & Samuel M. Candelaria, Drug Interdiction: Partnerships, Legal Principles, and Investigative
Methodologies for Law Enforcement 67 (2003) (“The knock and talk team should not take the dog with them to the door when
making contact with the suspect. This creates an intimidating and coercive environment. If a drug canine is available, it should be
kept out of sight while the consent is obtained by the officers.”).
269 For discussion of the purification necessary under Islamic law to cleanse an item or area that has been contaminated by contact
with a dog, see supra note 264.
270 This “potential for discovery” is distinguishable from the reference to a “potential for an invasion of privacy” made by the Karo
Court in discussing whether the installation of a beeper constituted a seizure. See United States v. Karo, 468 U.S. 705, 712 (1984)
(emphasis omitted). In Karo, the “potential” privacy invasion was entirely within the discretion of the police because the police
could decide to turn the beeper on, or not. Here, the intrusiveness that arises either from religious offense or discovery of the
canine-sniff police unit involves circumstances beyond the officer’s control.
271 See, e.g., State v. Guillen, 213 P.3d 230, 238 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2009) (finding that a canine home-sniff violated the Arizona
Constitution and describing canine sniffs of the exterior of a home as “intimidating, embarrassing, distressing, and worrisome
173