North Carolina’s appellate courts have recently issued two important opinions on the use of drug dogs, and the United States Supreme Court has granted certiorari in another drug dog case. This post summarizes these recent developments. Miller: “Instinctive” actions by dogs aren’t searches. The first recent case is State v. Miller. It began when officers, together with a dog named Jack, responded to a burglar alarm. The house was locked but a window was smashed. The defendant’s mother arrived with a key and authorized the officers to search the house for intruders. They sent Jack in. Jack first alerted to drugs in a dresser, then alerted – using a different signal – to a human suspect in a closet. The officers opened the closet door. No one was there, but two large black trash bags were on the floor. Jack nuzzled one, partly opening the bag and enabling the officers to see marijuana inside. The officers continued their protective sweep. They didn’t find an intruder, so they left the house. Then they obtained a search warrant based on the drugs they had seen, and eventually charged the defendant with drug offenses. The defendant moved to suppress, arguing that Jack’s actions amounted to an unlawful warrantless search, and that the search warrant was the fruit of the poisonous tree. The issue reached the state supreme court, which ruled that “a police dog’s instinctive action, unguided and undirected by the police” is not a search for purposes of the Fourth Amendment. It remanded [...]
Faculty Coordinators
