Pubdate: Tue, 15 Jun 2010
Source: Evening Sun, The (Norwich NY)
Copyright: 2010 Snyder Communications/The Evening Sun
Contact:  http://www.evesun.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/5159
Author: Tyler Murphy

STATE COURT BANS POLICE FROM K-9 SEARCHES WITHOUT SUSPICION

NORWICH - Last week the New York Court of Appeals ruled that police
can not subject a person or their vehicle to a canine drug search
unless the officer develops a "founded suspicion" that criminal
activity is taking place.

"New York State has a long history of restricting police authority and
power compared to other states or the federal government," said
Norwich Police Chief Joseph Angelino, whose department added a canine
officer last year. "It used to be that the air was 'free' and the dogs
were free to sniff it and free to follow it. But that's no longer the
case as New York has now taken even federal mandates one step further
in saying police need to have a suspicion of criminal activity prior
to letting police canines sniff the air."

Angelino said "founded suspicion" was a defined legal requirement
under New York State law and would need to be substantiated in court
following any search.

Prior to the June 8 ruling, officers on patrol were allowed to have
drug dogs pass around the exterior of any vehicle or person they
pulled over for a routine traffic stop in search of possible
narcotics, regardless. If the dog signaled a detection ,then police
could use the animal's cue as probable cause to search the rest of the
vehicle and seize any drugs located inside. Now, police need to
establish a suspicion of criminal activity before they're allowed to
deploy the dog.

"The state law is more protective than the federal, even though the
court is saying an officer has a right to be there for a traffic stop,
the dog can not be sniffing vehicle without a founded suspicion of
criminal activity," said District Attorney Joseph McBride.

McBride said the ruling creates a standard for a canine searches that
had not yet been established in New York.

"The case definitely states the guidelines; the question that was up
for debate in this case is resolved. The case basically states a
person will have a diminished expectation of privacy in an automobile,
but law enforcement needs at least an indication of criminal activity
outside of a routine traffic violation," he said.