By Eric Boehm | Watchdog.org
HARRISBURG – The U.S. Supreme Court ruled on Tuesday that drug-sniffing dogs can be used to establish probable cause for searches and arrests.
The case before the high court questioned whether the arrest of Clayton Harris, a Florida man, was legitimate because the police dog, Aldo, that alerted officers to the scent of dogs in Harris’ vehicle was not trained to detect the type of drugs that were eventually found. The arrest had been thrown out by the Florida Supreme Court in Florida v. Harris, but that ruling was overturned unanimously.
At issue was whether a drug-sniffing dog – which may have questionable training or could be giving a “false positive” to police officers – can be used to establish probable cause for searches and arrests or whether such activities violate the Fourth Amendment.
From USA Today, the details of the case:
“(Supreme Court Justice Elana) Kagan noted that the police officer first encountered a nervous driver, Clayton Harris, and an open beer can. Then Aldo ‘alerted’ at the door handle of the car, giving probable cause for a search. But the search didn’t turn up drugs that could be sniffed; instead, ingredients for manufacturing methamphetamine were found, and Harris was arrested.”
The Washington Post notes that the case was one of two regarding drug-sniffing dogs taken up by Supreme Court late last year. The other concerns whether police may bring a dog into someone’s home in order to obtain “probable cause” for a further search.
Boehm is a reporter on civil liberties issues for Watchdog.org