On May 24, 2007, in the Minnesota v. Davis case, the Minnesota Supreme Court ruled that police need only “articulable suspicion” to be able to use a drug sniffing canine to sniff the outside door of a person's residence.
The Burnsville police were informed by maintenance workers in an apartment complex that they believed they saw marijuana grow lights and that Davis would not allow them in his apartment to fix a water leak. Based on that information, police brought a drug sniffing dog to the apartment complex, and the dog reacted outside the apartment door. Police then used the maintenance workers' information, the drug dog alert, and Davis's past criminal record to attain a search warrant, which resulted in the finding of various items of contraband and three drug charges against Davis.
At his trial, Davis moved to restrain the evidence, arguing that police had to have probable cause to “sic a drug dog on his apartment door because the drug dog sniff of his door exterior actually amounted to a "search" of his apartment, thus requiring probable cause.” (Drug War Chronicle, 2007)
Davis lost at the trial court, which decided that police needed only articulable suspicion and that the police had met that standard. The Minnesota Court of Appeals confirmed that decision, and the state Supreme Court has reaffirmed it.
In this case, the type of warrantless search utilized was plain view: the principle that evidence in plain view of police officers may be seized without a search warrant. This is kind of a stretch, as the evidence was the odor the drug sniffing dog reacted to. (Siegel, 2008)
Search and Seizure: Minnesota Supreme Court Okays Drug Dog Sniff Outside Apartment Door. (2007, June 1). Retrieved October 20, 2009, from http://stopthedrugwar.org/chronicle/488/minnesota_supreme_court_upholds_drug_dog_door_sniff_search
Siegel, L. J. (2008). Warrantless Searches and Arrests. In Introduction to Criminal Justice (Twelfth ed. , ). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth .
No comments:
Post a Comment