skip navigation


Register for Latest Research

Stay Informed
Register with NCJRS to receive NCJRS's biweekly e-newsletter JUSTINFO and additional periodic emails from NCJRS and the NCJRS federal sponsors that highlight the latest research published or sponsored by the Office of Justice Programs.

NCJRS Abstract

The document referenced below is part of the NCJRS Virtual Library collection. To conduct further searches of the collection, visit the Virtual Library. See the Obtain Documents page for direction on how to access resources online, via mail, through interlibrary loans, or in a local library.


NCJ Number: 220518 Find in a Library
Title: Who Let the Dogs Out?: Drug Dogs in Court
Journal: Criminal Justice Studies  Volume:20  Issue:3  Dated:September 2007  Pages:177-196
Author(s): Jennifer Ashley; Simon Billinge; Craig Hemmens
Date Published: September 2007
Page Count: 20
Type: Legislation/Policy Analysis
Format: Article
Language: English
Country: United States of America
Annotation: This study reviewed judicial opinions on search-and-seizure issues related to the use of police dogs to sniff out drugs on individuals, in residences, and in vehicles.
Abstract: In Illinois v. Caballes (2005), the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that law enforcement officers could use a dog to sniff out drugs during a routine traffic stop, whether or not reasonable suspicion or probable cause for the presence of drugs existed; however, this case does not address the issue of privacy for individuals who legally possess drugs that contain morphine, cocaine, and marijuana. Police dogs will sniff out such drugs, but obviously cannot distinguish between illegal or legal possession of such drugs. Individuals who legally possess such drugs have a legitimate privacy interest in not experiencing police intervention. Whether the privacy interest of these few individuals outweighs the benefits gained from police dogs' ability to detect illegal drugs is controversial. To date, the U.S. Supreme Court has not addressed whether a canine sniff of a person constitutes a search under the fourth amendment. There are conflicting opinions among the Federal courts of appeals. Courts have been inconsistent regarding dog sniffs of the exterior of a residence. The majority of courts have imposed a reasonable-suspicion standard, rather than probable cause, in measuring the lawfulness of such sniffs. Whether a drug-dog sniff of a residence is considered a search depends on the area of the residence sniffed and the area's level of public access. It remains to be determined whether the routine use of drug dogs by the police will be extended to other than public areas and whether courts will sanction such an expanded use without establishing reasonable suspicion that illegal drugs are present. 3 tables, 14 references, and a list of cited court cases
Main Term(s): Police legal limitations
Index Term(s): Drug detection dogs; Police dogs; Search and seizure; Search and seizure laws; US Supreme Court decisions; Vehicle searches; Vehicle stops; Warrantless search
To cite this abstract, use the following link:

*A link to the full-text document is provided whenever possible. For documents not available online, a link to the publisher's website is provided. Tell us how you use the NCJRS Library and Abstracts Database - send us your feedback.