New York Law Review

Tag: Canine Sniff

  • People v. Devone, 17 N.Y.3d 106 (2011): Canine Sniff of Vehicle Exterior Requires Founded Suspicion

    People v. Devone, 17 N.Y.3d 106 (2011)

    A canine sniff of the exterior of a lawfully stopped vehicle constitutes a search under the New York State Constitution, requiring founded suspicion that criminal activity is afoot.

    Summary

    The New York Court of Appeals addressed whether a canine sniff of a vehicle’s exterior is a search under the state constitution and, if so, what level of suspicion is needed. In two consolidated cases, *People v. Devone* and *People v. Abdur-Rashid*, the Court held that a canine sniff is indeed a search, but requires only “founded suspicion” of criminal activity, a standard lower than reasonable suspicion. The Court reasoned that while individuals have a diminished expectation of privacy in their vehicles compared to their homes, that expectation still exists and is protected by the constitution. Because police had founded suspicion in both cases, the evidence obtained was admissible.

    Facts

    People v. Devone: Police stopped a vehicle because the driver, Washington, was using a cell phone. Washington could not produce a license or registration and gave inconsistent information about the vehicle’s owner. A canine sniff of the vehicle’s exterior resulted in an alert for narcotics. A subsequent search revealed crack cocaine.

    People v. Abdur-Rashid: An officer stopped Abdur-Rashid’s vehicle for lacking a front license plate. A second officer stopped the same vehicle 45 minutes later for the same reason and noticed debris on the vehicle. Abdur-Rashid and his passenger gave conflicting stories. Abdur-Rashid appeared nervous, and a canine sniff alerted to the presence of drugs. A search of the trunk revealed cocaine.

    Procedural History

    People v. Devone: The County Court initially suppressed the evidence, finding the canine sniff was an illegal search without reasonable suspicion. The Appellate Division reversed, holding that founded suspicion was sufficient. The Court of Appeals affirmed the Appellate Division.

    People v. Abdur-Rashid: The County Court denied the motion to suppress, finding the search lawful. The Appellate Division affirmed, holding the officer had founded suspicion. The Court of Appeals affirmed the Appellate Division.

    Issue(s)

    1. Whether a canine sniff of the exterior of a lawfully stopped vehicle constitutes a search under Article I, § 12 of the New York State Constitution.

    2. If so, what level of suspicion is required before law enforcement can conduct that search?

    Holding

    1. Yes, because a canine sniff of a vehicle’s exterior constitutes a search under Article I, § 12 of the New York State Constitution, as it intrudes upon a place where a person has a reasonable expectation of privacy, albeit a diminished one as compared to a home.

    2. Founded suspicion that criminal activity is afoot is sufficient, because the expectation of privacy in an automobile is less than in a home, and canine sniffs are less intrusive than a full search.

    Court’s Reasoning

    The Court distinguished its prior holding in *People v. Dunn* (77 N.Y.2d 19 (1990)), which required reasonable suspicion for a canine sniff outside an apartment, reasoning that automobiles have a diminished expectation of privacy compared to residences. The Court acknowledged the reduced, but legitimate, expectation of privacy in an automobile, placing it between a home and luggage handed to a common carrier (as in *People v. Price*, 54 N.Y.2d 557 (1981)).

    The Court adopted a “founded suspicion” standard, a level of suspicion lower than “reasonable suspicion,” balancing the diminished expectation of privacy in a vehicle with the utility of canine sniffs for law enforcement. The Court noted, “Given that diminished expectation of privacy, coupled with the fact that canine sniffs are far less intrusive than the search of a residence and provide ‘significant utility to law enforcement authorities’ application of the founded suspicion standard in these cases is appropriate.”

    In both *Devone* and *Abdur-Rashid*, the Court found the officers had founded suspicion. In *Devone*, the driver’s inability to produce a license or registration, inconsistent stories, and vehicle registration discrepancies provided the necessary suspicion. In *Abdur-Rashid*, the condition of the vehicle, unusual travel plans, and the defendant’s nervous behavior justified the canine sniff. The court concluded that the officers in both cases possessed a founded suspicion to conduct the canine sniff.

  • People v. Offen, 78 N.Y.2d 1089 (1991): Canine Sniffs and Reasonable Suspicion for Package Searches

    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.

  • People v. Dunn, 77 N.Y.2d 406 (1991): Warrantless Canine Sniff of Apartment Requires Reasonable Suspicion Under NY Constitution

    People v. Dunn, 77 N.Y.2d 406 (1991)

    Under the New York State Constitution, a warrantless canine sniff of the area outside a private residence to detect narcotics constitutes a search and requires reasonable suspicion that the residence contains contraband.

    Summary

    This case addresses whether a canine sniff outside an apartment door to detect narcotics constitutes an unlawful search under the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and Article I, § 12 of the New York State Constitution. The New York Court of Appeals held that while such a sniff does not violate the Fourth Amendment, the New York State Constitution requires police to have at least a reasonable suspicion that a residence contains contraband before conducting a canine sniff. The court reasoned that the state constitution provides greater protection against unreasonable government intrusions.

    Facts

    Police received information that defendant Dunn was keeping controlled substances in his apartment. They arranged for a trained narcotics detection dog to sniff the hallway outside Dunn’s apartment. The dog alerted, indicating the presence of drugs inside. Based on the dog’s reaction and prior information, police obtained a warrant to search the apartment, which led to the seizure of cocaine, marihuana, drug paraphernalia, and handguns. A second warrant was obtained to search another apartment of Dunn’s, which also resulted in the seizure of drugs and paraphernalia.

    Procedural History

    Dunn was indicted on multiple drug-related offenses. He moved to suppress the evidence seized during both searches, arguing the warrants were improperly issued based on the unlawful canine sniff. The trial court denied the motion, and Dunn was convicted. The Appellate Division affirmed the conviction, with a divided court on the legality of the canine sniff. Dunn appealed to the New York Court of Appeals.

    Issue(s)

    1. Whether a canine sniff outside a private residence to detect narcotics constitutes a search under the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

    2. Whether a canine sniff outside a private residence to detect narcotics constitutes a search under Article I, § 12 of the New York State Constitution, and if so, what level of suspicion is required.

    Holding

    1. No, because the canine sniff only reveals the presence or absence of narcotics, it does not constitute a search under the Fourth Amendment.

    2. Yes, because it obtains information regarding the contents of a private place, a canine sniff is a search under the New York State Constitution; however, such a search requires only reasonable suspicion, not probable cause or a warrant, because it is minimally intrusive.

    Court’s Reasoning

    The court first addressed the Fourth Amendment issue, relying on United States v. Place, which held that a canine sniff of luggage in an airport is not a search because it is minimally intrusive and only reveals the presence or absence of contraband. The court rejected the Second Circuit’s attempt to distinguish Place for residential sniffs, finding that the heightened expectation of privacy in a residence does not alter the fact that a canine sniff only reveals evidence of criminality.

    Turning to the New York State Constitution, the court emphasized its right to interpret the state constitution independently of the federal constitution, especially when federal analysis threatens to undercut citizens’ rights against unreasonable government intrusions. The court distinguished its prior holding in People v. Price, noting that the Price decision focused on the reduced expectation of privacy with luggage in the hands of a common carrier, rather than the nature of the investigative tool itself.

    The court reasoned that the fact that an investigative procedure can only reveal evidence of criminality should not be determinative of whether it constitutes a search. The focus should be on whether there has been an intrusion into an area where an individual has a reasonable expectation of privacy. “Thus, our analysis should more appropriately focus on whether there has been an intrusion into an area where an individual has a reasonable expectation of privacy.”

    The court found that using a trained canine outside Dunn’s apartment constituted a search because it obtained information about the contents of a place with a heightened expectation of privacy. The court analogized the odors emanating from the apartment to the sound waves harnessed in Katz v. United States. The court feared the implications of allowing indiscriminate canine sniffs in public housing projects, calling it an “Orwellian notion” repugnant to the State Constitution.

    However, the court also acknowledged the uniquely discriminate and nonintrusive nature of a canine sniff. Therefore, it held that a warrant or probable cause is not required, only a reasonable suspicion that the residence contains contraband. Because the police had reasonable suspicion in this case, Dunn’s rights under the New York State Constitution were not violated.