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.