Canine Search of Package in Transit Violated Privacy Interest under State Constitution

The use of a canine to sniff a package in transit violated the recipient’s privacy interest because he had a property right in the package protected under the state’s constitution

State v. Barnthouse, 2016 BL 334731, Or., No. SC S063426, 10/6/16

The Oregon Supreme Court found that the interception of a package by police to perform a dog sniff violated a recipient’s privacy interest because he was guaranteed a property interest in the package, even while in transit. The court found that under the state constitution, a citizen has a protected possessory interest in the package through the “stream of mail.” The package that was sent was discovered by police during an examination of suspicious packages with drug canines at the airport. After drugs were discovered in the package, the police went to the owner of the package to ask him to open it, allowing officers to discover illegally shipped marijuana and money.

Several federal circuits and courts have allowed officers to subject a package to a quick canine sniff, but only as long as it did not interfere with the package or its timely delivery. Additionally, police could not remove it from the delivery service or carrier’s custody for extended periods. These courts reasoned that the Fourth Amendment was not implicated as long as the package was not overly aggressive. The Oregon Supreme Court, however, went one step further and found the state constitution to protect the property interests in the package at each stage of delivery.
.
https://www.bloomberglaw.com/public/desktop/document/State_v_Barnthouse_No_SC_S063426_2016_BL_334731_Or_Oct_06_2016_Co?1476818368

Sniffing Dog Does Not Violate Fourth Amendment if there are Exigent Circumstances

The use of a sniffing dog around the curtilage of a home during a hot pursuit does not violate the Fourth Amendment because there were exigent circumstances during the chase

State v. Gay, 2016 BL 240680, N.H., No. 2015-0174, 7/27/16.

    The New Hampshire Supreme Court recently ruled that police using a sniffing dog without a warrant to track an individual to the curtilage of a home does not violate the Fourth Amendment. The pursuit took place in the immediate aftermath of a murder in which a dog immediately took after the scent from some “skin rafts” and traced it to the defendant’s home. The defendant motioned to suppress the evidence, arguing the search violated a similar principle established in Florida v. Jardines, in which the use of a drug sniffing dog on an unverified tip was unconstitutional. The New Hampshire Supreme Court distinguished this case, however, arguing that the exigencies of the case due to the dispersion of the scent from the “skin rafts” warranted the use of the sniffing dog. Additionally, the court noted that the level of intrusion was minimal because the dog was not used to climb onto structures in the property and after the home was identified, the officers immediately left to obtain a warrant.

http://www.bloomberglaw.com/public/document/State_v_Gay_No_20150174_2016_BL_240680_NH_July_27_2016_Court_Opin.

A Dog's Sniff In A Common Hallway Requires A Warrant

A warrant is required for police to use dogs to sniff in an apartment building's common hallway.

United States v. Whitaker, 2016 BL 113879, 7th Cir., No. 14-3290, 4/12/16

     The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the police violated the Fourth Amendment when they walked a drug-sniffing dog up to a suspect's door in a common hallway of an apartment building and used the dog's "alert" as probable cause to get a search warrant.

     This is the first time that a federal circuit court extended the dog-sniff rule elicited in Florida v. Jardines, 2013 BL 79684 (U.S. 2013) (92 CrL 781, 3/27/13), to include shared hallways in apartment buildings.

http://www.bloomberglaw.com/public/desktop/document/United_States_v_Whitaker_No_143290_and_143506_2016_BL_113879_7th_?1463068355