UNIVERSITY OF THE DISTRICT OF - UDC Law Review

encounters”).
272 See supra note 6.
273 See Merrett v. Moore, 58 F.3d 1547, 1549 (11th Cir. 1995) (noting that “the dogs scratched several cars” at a roadblock set up to
detect narcotics); see also United States v. Cota-Lopez, 358 F. Supp. 2d 579, 584 (W.D. Tex. 2002) (stating that a drug-detection
dog alerted “by barking and scratching at the door”).
274 United States v. Jacobsen, 466 U.S. 109, 124 (1984). The Court observed that, even though the amount of tested powder was so
minute that its loss was undetectable, id. at 125 n.27, the field testing “did affect [Jacobsen’s] possessory interests protected by the
[Fourth] Amendment, since by destroying a quantity of the powder it converted what had been only a temporary deprivation of
possessory interests into a permanent one.” Id. at 124-25.
275 417 U.S. 583, 591-92 (1974).
276 See Jacobsen, 466 U.S. at 125 (observing that “[t]o assess the reasonableness of [the field testing], [we] must balance the nature
and quality of the intrusion on the individual’s Fourth Amendment interests against the importance of the governmental interests
alleged to justify the intrusion” (internal quotation marks omitted) (third alteration in original)).
277 See, e.g., id. (observing that “since the property had already been lawfully detained, the ‘seizure’ could, at most, have only a de
minimis impact on any protected property interest”).
278 Id. at 125 n.28 (cautioning that although the destruction of the white powder in Jacobsen was reasonable, “[w]e do not suggest,
however, that any seizure of a small amount of material is necessarily reasonable”).
279 While the idea of cats being chased is introduced, in part, to provide a bit of levity to the discussion, it should be noted that even
inconveniences with respect to property must be supported by a lawful initial seizure. For example, the Jacobsen Court observed
that the seizure of the luggage in Place became unreasonable because the bags were kept too long. Id. at 124 n.25. Again, the key
point with respect to these additional investigative activities (field testing in Jacobsen and the canine sniff in Place) is the fact that
both were supported by a lawful initial seizure of the item involved. No such lawful initial seizure of a private home is required to
conduct a canine home-sniff that would otherwise support inconveniences, such as runaway pets or trodden landscaping.
280 Cf. id. at 125 n.28 (noting that “where more substantial invasions of constitutionally protected interests are involved, a warrantless
search or seizure is unreasonable in the absence of exigent circumstances”).
281 See supra notes 15, 20-21 and accompanying text (discussing the fact that potentially dangerous breeds are generally selected as
drug-detection dogs both for an “intimidation” factor and because these dogs are often cross-trained for apprehension, or “bite,”
capabilities).
282 See supra note 18.
283 Significantly, however, even people-friendly dogs would remain offensive to those who objected to dogs on religious grounds. See
supra notes 264-66 and accompanying text. Further, dogs may produce property damage, like scratched doors or other
inconveniences.
284 757 F.2d 1359 (2d Cir. 1985).
174