Matching Items (1)
Filtering by

Clear all filters

136864-Thumbnail Image.png

The Sniff is not up to Snuff: A Look at Drug Detection Dogs Under the Fourth Amendment

Description
An important question that needs to be discussed is whether drug detection dogs can be used the same way as machines in assisting drug detection and how these drug detection dogs should be used under the Fourth Amendment. In answering these questions, the history, training, certifications, and case law relating…

An important question that needs to be discussed is whether drug detection dogs can be used the same way as machines in assisting drug detection and how these drug detection dogs should be used under the Fourth Amendment. In answering these questions, the history, training, certifications, and case law relating to drug detection dogs should be reviewed. The dogs are powerful tools in the detection of narcotics, but it is critical to remember that they are only animals and far from flawless. They can make mistakes because of lapses in training, due to irregular training and certification standards, or cues, intentional or not, from their handlers. Under current precedent, walking around something, like a car, is not a search and does not require reasonable suspicion. A dog alert during this non-intrusive, superficial contact can give rise to probable cause to search. If the dog alert is not reliable, it can lead to many unnecessary searches that violate people's privacy. In order to protect Fourth Amendment rights from the, drug detection dogs need to be used carefully and with limitations. A dog's ability to smell is impressive and humans' ability to train them is vast, but a dog is just a dog. The limited accuracy of a dog sniff is not an issue when they are used to search for people in landslides or avalanches, because even 10% accuracy is helpful when trying to save someone's life. However, when a drug detection dog is used to establish probable cause for a search, accuracy becomes an issue. United States v. Place was based on faulty scientific evidence on the accuracy of dogs, and it set the standard for future drug detection dog cases. The courts need to revisit this issue in light of more recent information. Except in certain locations where Fourth Amendment rights are limited, drug detection dogs should only be used when reasonable suspicion of criminal conduct exists. This limitation, as well as enhanced training and certification standards, strikes the appropriate balance between living in a civilized society and living in a secure society.
ContributorsGodinez, Katherine Mary (Author) / Stanford, Michael (Thesis director) / Kirchler, Rebecca (Committee member) / Barrett, The Honors College (Contributor) / Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry (Contributor) / Sandra Day O'Connor College of Law (Contributor)
Created2014-05