Are Drug Sniffing Dogs so Accurate That The Evidence Can't Be Used in Court?
Everyone has seen them. They are at border crossings, airports, roadside checkpoints and many other places but just how accurate are drug sniffing dogs. Police officers have used for a long time, the highly sensitive noses of dogs trained to sniff out different kinds of drugs that can be hidden in vehicles, clothes, bags or various other places. The question is - does using these dogs violate the protection given to community members through the constitution? The questions about drug sniffing dogs have been getting a lot of national attention, and because of some changes in Florida laws, some serious implications for residents who have drug charges due to drug sniffing dogs.
Accuracy is Questionable
In 2011 the Chicago Tribune performed an investigation, which found that drug sniffing are usually more wrong than they are right. The investigation also found that only 44 percent of the time, were dogs right when they alerted about the presence in vehicles of drugs or paraphernalia. Just because a dog "alerts," does not mean there are drugs there but it may give the officer sufficient probable cause that will allow the officer to conduct a more intense search. Another of the questions is, should inaccurate alerts be sufficient enough to search more?
One thing that may cause false alerts is their handler. An officer may inadvertently provide cues that lead to a false alert such as walking around a vehicle many times or walking around a vehicle too slowly. The officer/handler may do this because he/she suspects certain people or vehicles of being highly likely to possess drugs, which is actually a form of profiling, but can also lead to the dog making a false alert. Even though this is usually unintentional on the officers part, the consequences for the resident, whose rights are on the line, is troubling.
Drug Sniffing Dogs Cases in Florida Have Reached the Supreme Court
So far in Florida there are two recent cases in the Florida Supreme Court, where rulings were issued, which clarified that "alerts" were used in the state as sufficient probable cause for the officer to conduct a search and have the results of the search as evidence in subsequent criminal cases. One of the rulings set by the Florida Supreme Court set standards officers must follow for further searches to be done when dogs alert. The State must show proper justification for using the alert by proving the dog was both trained and certified; just being trained is not enough. Specific details must also be provided by the state regarding the details about the dogs training as well as any past false alerts and what the dogs percentage of accuracy was. Not keeping accurate records about how the dog performed in the field is not an excuse for the State to claim. The State must also show all information on the training and experience of the dogs handler.
The Florida Supreme Court also found, in a separate case that it is in violation of a person's 4th amendment rights to have a drug sniffing dog sniff around a home without a warrant. In essence, it is an intrusion and against the law for sniffing around a home without a warrant or consent. Just because a person has a home does not allow "implied consent" for drug sniffing dogs to search outside. These cases in Florida were both appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court last year when the arguments were heard, and a ruling is soon expected. The rulings of the U.S. Supreme court will influence how Florida will apply these issues in future cases. If you have been charged with crimes because of a drug sniffing dog was involved, it is essential that you contact a criminal defense attorney to guide you in understanding how to apply the law in your case.
Accuracy is Questionable
In 2011 the Chicago Tribune performed an investigation, which found that drug sniffing are usually more wrong than they are right. The investigation also found that only 44 percent of the time, were dogs right when they alerted about the presence in vehicles of drugs or paraphernalia. Just because a dog "alerts," does not mean there are drugs there but it may give the officer sufficient probable cause that will allow the officer to conduct a more intense search. Another of the questions is, should inaccurate alerts be sufficient enough to search more?
One thing that may cause false alerts is their handler. An officer may inadvertently provide cues that lead to a false alert such as walking around a vehicle many times or walking around a vehicle too slowly. The officer/handler may do this because he/she suspects certain people or vehicles of being highly likely to possess drugs, which is actually a form of profiling, but can also lead to the dog making a false alert. Even though this is usually unintentional on the officers part, the consequences for the resident, whose rights are on the line, is troubling.
Drug Sniffing Dogs Cases in Florida Have Reached the Supreme Court
So far in Florida there are two recent cases in the Florida Supreme Court, where rulings were issued, which clarified that "alerts" were used in the state as sufficient probable cause for the officer to conduct a search and have the results of the search as evidence in subsequent criminal cases. One of the rulings set by the Florida Supreme Court set standards officers must follow for further searches to be done when dogs alert. The State must show proper justification for using the alert by proving the dog was both trained and certified; just being trained is not enough. Specific details must also be provided by the state regarding the details about the dogs training as well as any past false alerts and what the dogs percentage of accuracy was. Not keeping accurate records about how the dog performed in the field is not an excuse for the State to claim. The State must also show all information on the training and experience of the dogs handler.
The Florida Supreme Court also found, in a separate case that it is in violation of a person's 4th amendment rights to have a drug sniffing dog sniff around a home without a warrant. In essence, it is an intrusion and against the law for sniffing around a home without a warrant or consent. Just because a person has a home does not allow "implied consent" for drug sniffing dogs to search outside. These cases in Florida were both appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court last year when the arguments were heard, and a ruling is soon expected. The rulings of the U.S. Supreme court will influence how Florida will apply these issues in future cases. If you have been charged with crimes because of a drug sniffing dog was involved, it is essential that you contact a criminal defense attorney to guide you in understanding how to apply the law in your case.
Source...