78 N.Y.2d 1089 (1991)
A canine sniff of a package, even if considered a search under the New York Constitution, is permissible if supported by reasonable suspicion that the package contains contraband.
Summary
Defendant Offen was convicted of criminal possession of a controlled substance after a search warrant was issued based on information from informants, a canine sniff, and an X-ray of a package addressed to him. The New York Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction, holding that even if the canine sniff was a search under the State Constitution, it was justified by reasonable suspicion. The court found that the information from informants and the dog’s alert provided reasonable suspicion to believe the package contained contraband, making the warrant valid.
Facts
The Sheriff’s Department received information from two informants that Offen was receiving cocaine shipments from Florida concealed in teddy bears via UPS or Federal Express. They confirmed that four packages from Miami, Florida, had been delivered to Offen by UPS over two months. UPS notified the Sheriff’s Department about another package from the same Florida address destined for Offen. UPS was instructed to hold the package for a canine sniff by a Customs Service dog trained to detect marihuana, cocaine, and heroin. The dog alerted to the package. An X-ray of the package revealed a packet within what appeared to be a teddy bear shape.
Procedural History
Offen moved to suppress the evidence seized during the search, arguing the canine sniff and X-ray were unreasonable searches violating the New York State Constitution. The County Court denied the motion. Offen pleaded guilty to criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree. The Appellate Division affirmed the County Court’s decision.
Issue(s)
Whether a canine sniff of a package constitutes a search under Article I, § 12 of the New York State Constitution, and if so, what level of suspicion is required to justify such a search.
Holding
No, not explicitly answered. Even if the canine sniff of the defendant’s package constituted a search under the New York State Constitution, the sniff was proper because the Sheriffs had sufficient information to support a reasonable suspicion that the package contained contraband.
Court’s Reasoning
The court acknowledged its prior holding in People v. Dunn, 77 N.Y.2d 19 (1990), that a canine sniff could constitute a search under the New York Constitution, especially when it intrudes upon a heightened expectation of privacy. However, the court distinguished the present case. Here, the court reasoned that even if the canine sniff was a search, it was justified by reasonable suspicion. The court emphasized the information from the two informants and the confirmation of multiple packages arriving from Florida. This information, combined with the dog’s alert, established reasonable suspicion that the package contained contraband. Because the canine “alert” itself constituted probable cause, the court did not need to determine whether the X-ray of the package was an illegal search. The court stated that the “alert’ by the Customs Service dog upon sniffing defendant’s package itself constituted probable cause that the package contained narcotics and thus was sufficient to support the issuance of the warrant”. This case provides a practical guide for law enforcement: corroborating tips with independent evidence and using a trained canine can establish reasonable suspicion for package searches.