Does a drug dog sniff inside a vehicle require probable cause?
Traffic stops. We have all been there. You notice the flashing lights in your rearview mirror, pull over, and prepare for the usual questions. But what if the officer doesn’t ask you any questions and instead orders you out of your vehicle and calls in a drug dog to sniff the interior of your vehicle without your consent? Can officers legally do a drug dog sniff inside your vehicle without a warrant?
We previously analyzed recent Minnesota Appellate Court decisions on the use of drug dogs to sniff the exterior of your vehicle. The issue that was just analyzed was by the Court of Appeals in State v. Johnson was whether a nonconsensual, warrantless drug dog sniff inside a vehicle is considered a search for which law enforcement must have probable cause.
Starting at the beginning, for law enforcement to request a drug-dog they must have a reasonable, articulable suspicion that drug-related criminal activity is afoot. This means that police officers must observe specific, objective facts that point towards potential criminal activity before using a drug dog to sniff around a vehicle. However, Johnson presented a unique twist. Unlike exterior sniffs, where courts have held that dog sniffs are not considered a search, this case involves a dog sniff of the interior of a vehicle, an issue not addressed by either the United States Supreme Court or the Minnesota Supreme Court.
The distinction between the exterior and interior of a vehicle is crucial. In United States v. Jones, for instance, the United States Supreme Court ruled that attaching a GPS tracker to a vehicle without a warrant constituted a search because it involved the government physically occupying private property to obtain information. This case set a critical precedent: physical invasions into personal property to gather evidence are inherently intrusive and therefore subject to Fourth Amendment protections.
Similarly, in Florida v. Jardines, the Supreme Court held that using a drug-detection dog on a homeowner’s porch without permission was a search because it involved a physical intrusion into a constitutionally protected area. The Supreme Court emphasized that the act of bringing a tool (such as a dog) into a private space to gather information went beyond mere observation and violated reasonable expectations of privacy.
In Johnson, the Minnesota Court of Appeals applied these principles when concluding that the officer’s use of a drug-detection dog inside the defendant’s vehicle was comparable to the physical intrusions in Jones and Jardines. By sending the dog into the car without consent or a warrant, the officer conducted a search that required probable cause to believe it would result in the discovery of evidence or contraband.
This ruling is significant because it opens the door for law enforcement to use dog sniffs in the interior of vehicles without a warrant. But, even then, law enforcement still must establish probable cause before conducting said search.
If you are ever ordered out of your vehicle and subject to a warrantless search involving a dog sniff, it is important you find an attorney who is well-versed in the complexities of the evolving law to ensure your Fourth Amendment rights are not trampled on. The North Star team is one you need to challenge the law and counsel you through these challenging times.
Original Blog Post: North Star Criminal Defense
