Pubdate: Wed, 20 Feb 2013
Source: Herald, The (Everett, WA)
Copyright: 2013 Associated Press
Contact:  http://www.heraldnet.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/190
Author: Jesse J. Holland, Associated Press

DRUG DOGS MEET 'SNIFF TEST,' JUSTICES RULE

A unanimous Supreme Court says evidence discovered by police dogs 
only needs to meet the same tests for probable cause as any other evidence.

WASHINGTON - Police don't have to extensively document the work of 
drug-sniffing dogs in the field to be able to use the results of 
their work in court, the Supreme Court ruled on Tuesday.

Instead, Justice Elena Kagan wrote for a unanimous court, courts 
should apply the same tests to dog sniffs they do when they look at 
other issues of whether police have probable cause to take an action.

"The question - similar to every inquiry into probable cause - is 
whether all the facts surrounding a dog's alert, viewed through the 
lens of common sense, would make a reasonably prudent person think 
that a search would reveal contraband or evidence of a crime," Kagan 
said. "A sniff is up to snuff when it meets that test."

The court's ruling overturns a decision by the Florida Supreme Court 
in the case of Aldo, a drug-sniffing police dog used by the Liberty 
County sheriff.

Aldo was trained to detect methamphetamine, marijuana, cocaine, 
heroin and ecstasy, and alerted his officer to the scent of drugs on 
a truck during a 2006 traffic stop.

Instead of those drugs, a search of Clayton Harris' truck resulted in 
200 loose pseudoephedrine pills, 8,000 matches, a bottle of 
hydrochloric acid, two containers of antifreeze and a coffee filter 
full of iodine crystals - all ingredients for making methamphetamine. 
Harris was arrested and charged with possessing pseudoephedrine for 
use in manufacturing methamphetamine. Two months later, Harris was 
stopped again. Aldo again alerted his officer to the presence of 
drugs, but none were found.

Harris asked the courts to throw out evidence showing drugs were 
found in his truck, saying Aldo's alert did not give police probable 
cause for a search.

The Florida justices agreed, saying the police officer lacked 
probable cause to search, arguing that the officials' contention that 
a drug dog has been trained and certified to detect narcotics was not 
enough to establish the dog's reliability in court. Instead, the 
Florida court said, police needed to present training and 
certification records, field performance records, explanation of 
those records, and evidence concerning the dog handler's experience 
and training.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Jay Bergstrom