Recently, I have receive a lot of phone calls and emails about using detection dogs at checkpoints. The handlers that I have been speaking with have wondered what the “rules” are when using drug dogs at checkpoints. The “rules” are simply this:
1. Drug checkpoints clearly violate the Fourth Amendment.
2. Checkpoints can be established to detect drunk drivers, illegal immigrants and to verify license and registration.
3. Detection dogs can be used at checkpoints as long as the are utilized properly.
4. You cannot detain a person/vehicle for the sole purpose of a K-9 sniff without reasonable articulable suspicion.
I have attached a Case Law Reference that can be used to further understand the cases that relate to detection dogs and checkpoints. This 200+ page booklet covers many cases regarding both detection and apprehension/use of force cases.
There a couple of Supreme Court Decisions that can guide handlers in utilizing detection dogs at checkpoints and at other encounters as well. The first case is City of Indianapolis v Edmond. This case informs us that drug checkpoints are invalid and violate the Fourth Amendment. It also clearly outlines when and where checkpoints are valid and can be used. The second case to note is Illinois v Caballes. This 2005 case gives handlers and officers the right to conduct indiscriminate sniffs, without reasonable suspicion, as long as the vehicle is not detained for the sole purpose of the sniff. Both of these cases are listed below, in brief.
City of Indianapolis v Edmond (121 S. Ct. 447, 148 L. Ed. 2d 333 (2000) U.S. Supreme Court
States that roadblocks established to interdict unlawful drugs violate the Fourth Amendment.
A roadblock must be a legitimate effort to implement an authorized regulatory policy, rather than a pretext for a dragnet search for criminals.
The US Supreme Court has upheld brief, suspicionless seizures in three cases:
• Fixed checkpoints designed to intercept illegal aliens;
• Sobriety checkpoints aimed at removing drunken drivers from the road;
• A roadblock to verify a persons drivers’ licenses and registrations.
This decision does not affect the validity of border searches or searches in airports and government buildings. Nor does it inhibit a police officers’ ability to act upon information that they discover during a lawful checkpoint stop.
The fact that officers walk a narcotics detection dog around the exterior of a car during a checkpoint does not transform the seizure into a search.
Illinois v Caballes (125 S. Ct. 834 (2005) U.S. Supreme Court
States that a dog sniff conducted during a lawful traffic stop, that reveals no information other than location of contraband that no individual has any right to possess, does not violate the Fourth Amendment.
Also states that the use of a well trained narcotics detection dog, one that does not expose noncontraband items that otherwise would remain hidden from public view, during lawful traffic stop does not violate the Fourth Amendment.
Where a lawful traffic stop was not extended beyond the time necessary to issue a warning ticket and to conduct ordinary inquiries incident to such a stop, another officer’s arrival at the scene while the stop was in progress and the use of a narcotics detection dog to sniff around the exterior of a motorist’s vehicle does not have to be supported by some reasonable, articulable suspicion.