Illinois v. Caballes Roy I.

I. Caballes was stopped by a state trooper for speeding a second trooper drove to the scene with his dog and walked the dog around the car while the first trooper wrote a warning ticket the dog alerted at the trunk and when the officers searched the trunk, they found marijuana state trial court - duration of the stop was entirely justified by the traffic offense and the ordinary inquiries incident to such a stop; the dog alert was sufficiently reliable to provide probable cause to conduct the search state supreme court - because the canine sniff was performed without any specific and articulable facts to suggest drug activity, the use of the dog unjustifiably enlarged the scope of a routine traffic stop into a drug investigation U.S. supreme court - the use of a well-trained narcotics-detection dog during a lawful traffic stop generally did not implicate legitimate privacy interests; the dog sniff was performed on the exterior of the car while he was lawfully seized for a traffic violation; any intrusion on respondent's privacy expectations did not rise to the level of a constitutionally cognizable infringement ^ continuation - (1) the initial seizure by the first trooper had been based on probable cause and was concededly lawful; (2) the duration of the stop was entirely justified by the traffic offense and the ordinary inquiries incident to such a stop; and (3) any intrusion on the driver's privacy expectations did not rise to the level of a constitutionally cognizable infringement a dog sniff conducted during a lawful traffic stop that reveals no information other than the

location of a substance that no individual has any right to possess does not violate the 4th amendment
if the item cannot be lawfully possessed, there is no legitimate privacy interest; if a person can legally possess the item, there is a legitimate privacy interest

a dog sniff is not considered a search an alert by a trained dog constitutes probable cause to believe that a vehicle contains narcotics

* * * DECISION - dog sniff that was performed on exterior of driver's car while driver was seized for traffic violation held not to violate the 4th amendment under circumstances presented

Kyllo v. U.S. police aimed thermal-imaging device at petitioners residence after a police detective suspected the petitioner of growing marijuana based on the thermal-imaging information, they obtained a search warrant for the residence

showed no expectation of privacy - made no attempt to conceal the heat escaping from his home and even if he had, the image showed no intimate details of his life

appellate court - obtaining information regarding the interior of the home that could not otherwise have been obtained without physical intrusion into a constitutionally protected area, such as petitioner's private residence, constituted a search, at least where the technology was not in general public use

since thermal imaging technology was not in general public use, such a surveillance was a search and was presumptively unreasonable without a warrant

whether the search warrant was supported by probable cause without the surveillance evidence was for the trial court to determine in the first instance

the difference between the two cases is that the thermal imaging device in the Kyllo case was capable of revealing intimate details of the home but the canine sniff was only capable of revealing the presence of contraband

what is or is not a search has nothing to do with the place or thing that is being sniffed, rather the item of contraband that is being sought

it would therefore seem logical that a police officer with a drug dog could sniff the foundation of a house and use the results to establish probable cause for a search warrant

if the item cannot be lawfully possessed, there is no legitimate privacy interest if a person can legally possess the item, there is a legitimate privacy interest

http://www.okbar.org/obj/articles_05/081305dunn.htm http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/03-923.ZO.html http://web1c.uct.usm.maine.edu/academics/maine-law-review/pdf/vol46_1/vol46_me_l_rev_151.pdf http://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/99-8508/#writing-ZS