Pubdate: Sat, 07 Jan 2012
Source: San Francisco Chronicle (CA)
Copyright: 2012 Hearst Communications Inc.
Contact: http://www.sfgate.com/chronicle/submissions/#1
Website: http://www.sfgate.com/chronicle/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/388
Author: David G. Savage

SUPREME COURT TO RULE ON USE OF DRUG-SNIFFING DOGS

Washington -- The Supreme Court agreed Friday to decide whether 
police may use a drug-sniffing dog at the front door of a house or an 
apartment to detect marijuana, even if the officers have no evidence 
of criminal conduct.

The decision in a Florida case will be the latest test of the Fourth 
Amendment's protection against unreasonable searches in drug cases. 
It also will be the third in a trilogy of rulings on drug-sniffing dogs.

In the past, the court has upheld the use of dogs to sniff luggage at 
airports and to sniff around cars that were stopped along the 
highway. The justices said that using trained dogs in public areas 
didn't violate anyone's right to privacy.

The Florida Supreme Court, however, said homes are different. The 
Fourth Amendment "applies with extra force where the sanctity of the 
home is concerned," the state justices said last year.

Based on that rationale, they overturned a Miami man's conviction for 
growing marijuana at home. Acting on a tip, officers had taken 
Franky, a Labrador retriever, to the front porch of a home owned by 
Joelis Jardines. The dog detected the odor of marijuana and sat down 
as he was trained to do. The police then used this information to 
obtain a search warrant. They found 179 marijuana plants inside the house.

Throwing out the evidence, the state justices said they were 
unwilling to permit "dog sniff tests ... at the home of any citizen" 
unless the police had "probable cause" of criminal wrongdoing.

Eighteen states are supporting Florida's appeal and argue police dogs 
are a valuable tool for detecting drugs.

The high court usually sides with the police in search cases. In May, 
the justices ruled police were justified in breaking down the door of 
an apartment in Lexington, Ky., because they smelled marijuana and 
believed the occupants were about to destroy the evidence. In an 8-1 
decision, the court reasoned the police did not have time to obtain a 
search warrant.

But not every search method wins approval. The justices rejected the 
use of thermal imagers, which can detect the heat of powerful lights 
used to grow marijuana. In that case, the court decided that the 
device allows police to look into a house and thereby violates the 
privacy rights of the homeowners.

The court said Friday it would hear the case of Florida vs. Jardines 
in April and issue a ruling by late June.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Jay Bergstrom