People v. Price, 54 N.Y.2d 557 (1981)
The use of a trained dog to sniff luggage for the presence of controlled substances in a public place does not constitute a search within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment.
Summary
Leonard Price was arrested after a trained dog alerted police to the presence of drugs in his luggage at an airport. Price argued that the dog sniff was an unlawful search requiring a warrant, and thus the subsequent warrant obtained based on the dog’s reaction was invalid. The New York Court of Appeals held that a dog sniff of luggage in a public place is not a search under the Fourth Amendment because it does not intrude upon a reasonable expectation of privacy. The court reasoned that individuals do not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the odors emanating from their luggage into the surrounding air. This case establishes an exception to the warrant requirement based on the limited and non-intrusive nature of a canine sniff.
Facts
Leonard Price and Carl Parsons were observed at the Los Angeles airport exhibiting nervous behavior and carrying large sums of cash while purchasing tickets for a flight to Buffalo shortly before departure.
Detective Kaiser, suspicious of their behavior, alerted other officers who brought a trained narcotics detection dog named Frog to the airline’s baggage area.
Frog alerted to the presence of controlled substances in the defendants’ luggage.
Based on the dog’s reaction and Detective Kaiser’s observations, a special agent of the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) was contacted, who then relayed the information to the New York State Police.
The State Police obtained a search warrant for the defendants and their luggage.
After the defendants claimed their baggage at the Buffalo airport, drug enforcement agents stopped and searched them, finding a large amount of heroin in one of the suitcases.
Procedural History
Price was indicted on charges related to criminal possession of a controlled substance and drug paraphernalia.
Price moved to suppress the evidence, arguing that the dog sniff in Los Angeles was an unlawful search requiring a warrant, and that the subsequent warrant in New York was therefore invalid.
The trial court denied the motion to suppress.
Price pleaded guilty to a reduced charge of criminal possession of a controlled substance.
The Appellate Division affirmed the judgment.
The New York Court of Appeals granted leave to appeal.
Issue(s)
Whether the use of a trained dog to sniff luggage for the presence of controlled substances in a public place constitutes a search within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment, thus requiring a warrant.
Holding
No, because a person does not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the odors emanating from their luggage into the surrounding air in a public place.
Court’s Reasoning
The court reasoned that the Fourth Amendment protects individuals from unreasonable governmental intrusion where they have a reasonable expectation of privacy, citing Terry v. Ohio and Katz v. United States.
While acknowledging that individuals have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the contents of closed luggage (United States v. Chadwick), the court distinguished this from the act of a dog sniffing the air surrounding the luggage.
The court stated, “Since the dog does nothing more than smell the air surrounding the luggage in order to detect odors emanating from that luggage, there was no intrusion or search of the luggage. Defendant must assert a reasonable expectation that the air surrounding his luggage and the odor apparent in that surrounding air will remain private. In such circumstances, the Fourth Amendment affords no protection.”
The court relied on analogous precedent regarding items in plain view and odors noticeable to the public, noting that there is no reasonable expectation of privacy in items left in plain view of an officer lawfully in the position from which he observes the item (Harris v. United States), and that “there can be no reasonable expectation that plainly noticeable odors will remain private.”
The court cited federal cases that have considered the use of drug-sniffing dogs and concluded that there is no reasonable expectation of privacy in the air surrounding one’s possessions (e.g., United States v. Fulero, United States v. Venema, United States v. Bronstein, United States v. Solis, United States v. Goldstein).
The court reasoned that “once one releases something into the open air, there can be little reasonable expectation of asserting one’s claims of privacy in either the item itself or in the surrounding air.”
The court compared the use of a dog to track contraband to the use of dogs to track escaped criminals or lost persons, as well as the use of a flashlight to enhance an officer’s vision (People v. Cruz, People v. Sullivan).
The court also noted that airline passengers surrender some expectation of privacy by entrusting their luggage to a common carrier responsible for ensuring passenger safety, referencing airport searches (People v. Kuhn, United States v. Bronstein, United States v. Goldstein).
The court concluded that the police acted properly by seeking a warrant to search the luggage after the dog alerted to the presence of drugs (United States v. Chadwick), finding that there was probable cause to issue the warrant based on the defendants’ behavior, the large amount of cash they carried, and the dog’s reaction and training.