The United States Supreme Court handed down an opinion yesterday that gives more power to the dogs--police drug-sniffing dogs that is. The case is entitled Florida v. Harris. The Court ruled that when a police dog shows signs that they have picked up an odor for drugs, officers may search a vehicle. Even without any other indication of criminal activity, other than the dog's sniff, police may search a vehicle for drugs. The Court's unanimous decision reduces a person's reasonable expectation of privacy in their motor vehicle.
The case revolved a drug-sniffing police dog named Aldo from Florida. When officers stopped a vehicle for a traffic violation they had Aldo sniff around the perimeter of the vehicle for the odor of drugs. When Aldo indicated that he had smelled something suspicious in the driver's side door, officers searched the vehicle to discover drug making equipment. The Court ruled that other courts must use a common-sense approach to see if the use of a drug-sniffing dog is reasonable. Most relevant, is to see if the dog has been trained to do what the police use it for. This, of course, does not take into account how well the dog performed during its training or if it continues to have regular training. Also, what if an officer ques the dog to make a false indication? The Court did not reach the question in its opinion.
Here is a link to the opinion.
The above summary is only the tip of the iceberg when it comes to search and seizure law. There are many more areas for a lawyer to examine when challenging the sufficiency of a traffic stop or a motor vehicle search. Massachusetts law allows more liberty, as compared to the U.S. Constitution or other states, when it comes to a person's reasonable expectation of privacy. Nonetheless, Floria v. Harris is now legal precedent.
www.Bohnet-Romani.com
No comments:
Post a Comment