Information provided by Terry Fleck http://www.k9fleck.org/

Vehicle Searches

A canine sniff of the exterior of a vehicle is not a search. The vehicle must be lawfully detained, such as a traffic stop, roadblock, etc.

If the vehicle is parked in a public place, random and suspicionless dog sniffs of the exterior is not a search.

An investigative stop and/or detention of a vehicle for an exterior canine sniff, must be supported by reasonable suspicion or consent. Drug courier profile, without more, does not create reasonable suspicion. Failure to consent to search cannot form any part of basis for reasonable suspicion.

If you tell a person that a canine unit or drug dog is being requested, the person is detained. Consent may not be requested.

Once the canine sniff produces a positive alert, this alert establishes probable cause.

Under the automobile exception to the search warrant requirement, all parts of the vehicle may be searched without a warrant.

The dog may be used for the interior search (after the positive canine alert on the exterior).

You may impound and tow the vehicle to a different location and continue the warrantless search of the vehicle there.

If, after a positive canine alert on the exterior of the vehicle, no contraband is located in the vehicle, you may conduct a “search incident to arrest” search of the occupants.

1) Detentions of vehicles while awaiting a K-9 sniff:

A) Ask for consent.

B) United States v Hardy (855 F. 2d 753 (1988) Eleventh Circuit

Discrepancies from the suspect(s) can be part of your reasonable suspicion. Do not confront the suspect(s) with their discrepancies. This allows them to change their story and once discrepancies are corrected, you may lose your reasonable suspicion.

C) United States v Dewitt (946 F. 2d 1497 (1991) Tenth Circuit

If consent is refused, you must have reasonable suspicion of unlawful activity to detain. The reasonable suspicion factors must establish the reasons for the detention. You must be able to articulate each observation that is a potential indicator of drug trafficking or use.

2) United States v Spetz (721 F. 2d 1457 (1983) Ninth Circuit

Detector dogs’ alert on a parked vehicle in a public place was reasonable suspicion of the presence of illegal drugs and was sufficient to justify a further dog sniff.

A dog sniff can supply probable cause necessary for issuing a search warrant only if sufficient reliability is established by application for the warrant.

Portion of search warrant affidavit stating that detector dog had alerted to a vehicle established probable cause to search the vehicle.

3) United States v Montoya de Hernandez (473 U. S. 531 (1985) U. S. Supreme Court

Consistent with Congress’ power to protect the nation by stopping and examining persons entering this country, the Fourth Amendment’s balance of reasonableness is qualitatively different at the international border than in the interior. Routine searches of persons and effects of entrants are not subject to any requirement of reasonable suspicion, probable cause or warrant.

Automotive travelers may be stopped at fixed checkpoints near the border without individualized suspicion, even if the stop is based largely on ethnicity, and boats on inland waters with ready access to the sea may be hailed and boarded with no suspicion whatsoever.

Expectation of privacy at an international border is less than in the interior.

4) United States v Dicesare (765 F. 2d 890 (1985) Ninth Circuit

Canine sniff of automobile trunk was not a search. Alerting to a suitcase in the trunk provided probable cause to search the defendant’s car and her apartment.

5) United States v Hamilton (792 F. 2d 837 (1986) Ninth Circuit

Agents’ search of a motor home parked in homeowner’s driveway fell within scope of vehicle exception to warrant requirement, where the motor home was moved the night before and had easy access to a public road, even when the motor home was connected to electrical utilities by means of an extension cord.

6) United States v Quinn (815 F. 2d 153 (1987) First Circuit

While officers were securing a house for a search warrant, suspects drove up to the house in a car. Officers developed reasonable suspicion that the defendants were about to commit or had committed a crime.

Based upon the reasonable suspicion, a canine sniff was done on the vehicle. The dog alerted to the trunk, which gave officers probable cause to search the vehicle.

7) United States v Rivera (825 F. 2d 152 (1987) Seventh Circuit

The automobile exception to the Fourth Amendment allows a warrantless search and seizure of a car as long as the search is justified by probable cause, even if the car is parked and stationary.

Law enforcement agent’s delays in the search of the car by removing it to a garage and sniff tested by narcotic detection dog and until another sniff test was conducted, were reasonable.

8) United States v Hardy (855 F. 2d 753 (1988) Eleventh Circuit

Trooper had reasonable suspicion justifying investigative stop of defendant’s automobile after he had given the driver warning for speeding.

Subjecting luggage in defendant’s automobile to a canine sniff did not exceed permissible scope of Terry stop. The sniff was an un-intrusive way in which to determine whether narcotics were in the luggage in the trunk.

Trooper acted with dispatch in obtaining trained dog and 50-minute delay did not invalidate the detention, particularly due to the trooper’s avoiding any questioning of the defendant’s during the waiting period.

9) United States v Stone (866 F. 2d 359 (1989) Tenth Circuit

Police use of a narcotics dog to sniff an automobile is not a search.

A warrantless search of narcotics suspect’s car was justified when a trained dog indicated existence of narcotics after jumping into car’s open hatchback and hatchback was not opened to permit dog to enter and dog was not encouraged to enter the car.

The defendant himself opened his vehicle and provided an opportunity for the dog to jump through the opening.

10) United States v De Soto (885 F. 2d 354 (1989) Seventh Circuit

Probable cause was established when a narcotics-sniffing dog reacted positively to presence of drugs in the rear of an automobile that arrived at defendant’s building.

11) United States v Dovali-Avila (895 F. 2d 206 (1990) Fifth Circuit

Mere alerting of a dog trained to alert on contraband or mere walking of the dog around a vehicle does not constitute a search.

Officers have probable cause to search a vehicle upon which a trained dog alerted to the presence of contraband in the bed of a truck.

12) United States v Maejia (928 F. 2d 810 (1991) Eighth Circuit

Otherwise valid traffic stop does not become unreasonable merely because officer believes the car is involved in transportation of drugs.

Once a trained police dog sniffed a vehicle for narcotics and gave a positive canine alert, that established probable cause to search the vehicle.

13) United States v Fiala (929 F. 2d 285 (1991) Seventh Circuit

One and one-half hour roadside detention of driver while troopers awaited arrival of drug sniffing dog was reasonable, where driver would have been detained anyway in county jail as a result of his arrest for driving without a valid license.

14) United States v Rodriguez-Morales (929 F. 2d 780 (1991) First Circuit

Canine sniff of the exterior of a vehicle, which is legitimately within the custody of police, is not a search.

Once the vehicle had legitimately been impounded pursuant to officers’ community care taking function, sniffing of the exterior of the vehicle by a drug detection dog was not a search.

15) United States v Taylor (934 F. 2d 218 (1991) Ninth Circuit

Border patrol agent’s observation that motorist became increasingly nervous and uneasy at end of initial check for illegal aliens constituted minimal, articulable suspicion necessary to justify brief further delay for dog sniff.

16) United States v Moralez (964 F. 2d 677 (1992) Seventh Circuit

Defendant voluntarily consented to search of automobile where defendant verbally consented three times and the officer told the defendant that a police dog would be used to assist searching the vehicle. The dog alerted to one spare tire and the defendant verbally consented to removing the tire from the rim.

17) United States v Morales-Zamora (974 F. 2d 149 (1992) Tenth Circuit

A “pretextual stop” occurs if police use legal justification to make stop when true purpose of stop is to search person or vehicle for unrelated and more serious crime for which police lack reasonable suspicion necessary to support stop.

Evidence in this case showed that primary reason for roadblock stop of defendant’s vehicle was not to check her driver’s license, but to ascertain, with the aid of narcotics detection dog, whether defendant possessed drugs, and thus, stop was pretextual and all that occurred after stop was tainted.

A roadblock set up for sole purpose of subjecting all stopped vehicles to a canine sniff violated Fourth Amendment.

(See City of Indianapolis v Edmond)

18) United States v Barbee (968 F. 2d 1026 (1992) Tenth Circuit

Dog sniff of vehicle for narcotics was not a search where vehicle was already lawfully seized.

Based upon the canine alert, once this gave agents probable cause to search luggage carried in vehicle, no warrant was necessary under the automobile exception.

Automobile exception allowed warrantless search of all containers in automobile.

19) United States v Hernandez (976 F. 2d 929 (1992) Fifth Circuit

Canine sniff of exterior of car referred by border patrol agent in secondary inspection area is not a search.

Agent had probable cause to search vehicle for narcotics when the vehicle had been properly stopped and a dog performing sniff test had alerted to the presence of drugs.

20) United States v Seals (987 F. 2d 1102 (1993) Fifth Circuit

Dog sniff is not a search. Officers do not need reasonable suspicion to conduct an exterior vehicle sniff.

Initial alert by dog during dog sniff, when a dog jumped up on driver’s side window, which officer interpreted as an alert on the interior of the vehicle, gave officers probable cause to search the passenger compartment.

When dog alerted to a box in the trunk, probable cause extended to the entire vehicle and all containers therein.

21) United States v Hatley (15 F. 3d 856 (1994) Ninth Circuit

The automobile exception to the warrant requirement applies to search of inoperable car parked on defendant’s property, where car was parked in driveway and was apparently mobile.

Officers are not required to ascertain functional capacity of vehicle in order to satisfy exigency requirement of vehicle exception to warrant requirement.

22) United States v Chavira (9 F. 3d 888 (1993) Tenth Circuit

Although consent or reasonable suspicion is not required for dog-sniff of legally detained vehicle, it is required for continued detention beyond lawful period.

Defendant’s consent to dog sniff of vehicle amounted to consent to resulting brief detention.

When dog alerts to vehicle, officers have probable cause to search it.

23) United States v Ludwig (10 F. 3d 1523 (1993) Tenth Circuit

Police officer’s entry of motel parking lot with dog for a canine sniff of vehicles parked in the lot was not a search.

Random and suspicionless dog sniffs of vehicles in motel parking lot was not a search.

Dog alert gave agents’ probable cause to search trunk of automobile.

Under the automobile exception to warrant requirement, if police have probable cause to search a car, no warrant is required even when police have time and opportunity.

24) United States v Jeffus (22 F. 3d 554 (1994) Fourth Circuit

Regardless of motive behind vehicle stop, the defendant’s vehicle failed to have proper safety devices and was justifiably stopped.

A dog sniff of the exterior of the vehicle during this stop was not a search. When the dog alerted to the car, the officer had probable cause to search.

The 15 minute period prior to the K-9 sniff during the traffic stop was reasonable.

25) United States v Sukiz-Grado (22 F. 3d 1006 (1994) Tenth Circuit

Dog’s alert behavior while sniffing vehicle’s exterior provided probable cause to believe the vehicle contained contraband and justified dog search of vehicle’s interior.

26) United States v Brown (24 F. 3d 1223 (1994) Tenth Circuit

A canine sniff of an automobile parked in a public parking lot is not a search.

27) United States v Diaz (25 F. 3d 392 (1994) Sixth Circuit

Evidence showed drug dog was properly trained and reliable, the dog was trained, certified and re-certified. The defendant’s expert, a former officer and now dog trainer, did not detract from dog’s trainer qualifications.

A very low percentage of false positives is not fatal to finding that drug dog was properly trained and certified.

Motel guest had no reasonable expectation of privacy in motel’s parking lot; thus agents could use drug dog in motel’s parking lot to sniff for drugs (vehicles).

28) United States v Klinginsmith (25 F. 3d 1507 (1994) Tenth Circuit

When drug sniffing dog alerted to a vehicle, there was probable cause to arrest occupant and to search the vehicle without warrant under the automobile exception.

29) United States v Perez (37 F. 3d 510 (1994) Ninth Circuit

Search of defendant’s automobile did not exceed scope of consent to search, even though a canine was used, where the defendant did not object at the time to the use of a narcotics dog.

Personal intrusion attributable to a dog sniff is minimal and the use of a narcotics dog is one of the least intrusive means of carrying out consensual search of automobile
.
30) United States v Bloomfield (40 F. 3d 910 (1994) Eighth Circuit

An investigative stop must be supported by reasonable suspicion. The detention must be temporary and last no longer than is necessary to effectuate the purpose of the stop.

The one-hour time period between when the officer pulled the defendant over for a traffic violation and when officer arrested defendant was not unreasonable period to wait for drug dog to verify officer’s suspicion that vehicle contained drugs.

While waiting for the dog, the defendant:

• was told he was not under arrest;
• was not physically restrained;
• truck was not impounded or removed;
• truck was not searched until after drug dog provided probable cause.

Dog’s identification of drugs in luggage or in car provides probable cause that drugs are present, and vehicle then can be searched without warrant under the automobile exception to warrant requirement.

31) United States v Resio-Trejo (45 F. 3d 907 (1995) Fifth Circuit

A vehicle stopped at an U.S. Border Patrol checkpoint. While the driver was asked routine citizenship questions, a Border Patrol canine alerted to the vehicle. The agent then sent the vehicle to the secondary inspection area. Drugs were then discovered hidden in the vehicle.

32) Romo v Champion(46 F. 3d 1013 (1995) Tenth Circuit

If a vehicle is lawfully detained, a canine sniff of the exterior is not a search.

When the odor of narcotics escapes from the interior of a vehicle, there is no reasonable privacy in the public airspace containing the incriminating odor.

The scope of the sniff is limited to the exterior of the vehicle.

33) United States v Friend (50 F. 3d 548 (1995) Eighth Circuit

Defendant’s car, which was parked on his property, outside locked gate and fence, between garage and alley, was not parked within “curtilage” of his residence and, thus, a dog sniff of the outside of his car was not a search.

Once the dog alerted for drugs in car, police had probable cause to impound vehicle and obtain a warrant to search it. Once probable cause is established, the car can be searched without a warrant under the automobile exception to warrant requirement.

34) Merrett v Moore (58 F. 3d 1547 (1995) Eleventh Circuit

State had authority to establish roadblock operation, though chief purpose of roadblock was to intercept illegal drugs, where police were also checking for driver’s license and vehicle registration.

Use of dogs to sniff exterior of cars at roadblock checkpoint without individualized suspicion of drug-related criminal activity was not unconstitutional search, where sniffs occurred while motorists were lawfully stopped in public place during license check, and they were not delayed to conduct sniffs.

(See City of Indianapolis v Edmond)

35) United States v Patterson (65 F. 3d 68 (1995) Seventh Circuit

Following defendant’s arrest for a misdemeanor traffic violation, exposing his vehicle to a narcotics detection dog, including the vehicle’s interior, was a permissible search incident to arrest.

Under the automobile exception to the search warrant requirement, all parts of the vehicle may be searched without a warrant where there is probable cause to believe the car contains contraband.

36) United States v Massie (65 F. 3d 843 (1995) Tenth Circuit

At fixed checkpoint, border patrol agents may stop, briefly detain and question people without any reasonable suspicion.

Agents at secondary inspection can inquire into any suspicious circumstances they observe, as long as questioning is related to their duties.

Detention of vehicle where questioning lasted 8 to 11 minutes from time of stop at primary, to the moment the dog alerted to the vehicle at secondary, was reasonable.

Agents, based upon the dog alert, had probable cause to search the vehicle.

37) United States v Zucco (71 F. 3d 188 (1995) Fifth Circuit

So long as police conducting routine traffic stop do no more than they are objectively authorized and legally permitted to do, their motives in doing so are irrelevant and hence not subject to inquiry.

In a valid traffic stop, police officer may question driver, request driver’s license, insurance papers, vehicle registration, run computer checks and issue citation.

Officers had probable cause to search vehicle and were authorized to examine behind wall of automobile after drug dog alerted to presence of contraband at that location.

Every part of the vehicle, which may conceal object of search, may be searched, based upon dog alert.

Automobile exception permits officers to search that vehicle at police station without warrant, based upon dog alert.

38) United States v Buchanon (72 F. 3d 1217 (1995) Sixth Circuit

Seizure of defendants and their disabled truck was unreasonable when Trooper initially approached defendants only to offer assistance with disabled truck, but after arrival of backup, troopers conducted a canine search from which drugs were discovered.

The fruits of the canine narcotics sniff resulting from the unjustified seizure had to be suppressed.

39) Whren v United States (517 U.S. 806, 135 L. Ed. 2d 89 (1996) U.S. Supreme Court

A traffic stop was permissible – regardless of whether a police officer subjectively believed that the occupants of an automobile might be engaging in some other illegal behavior – as long as a reasonable officer in the same circumstances “could have” stopped the car for the suspected traffic violation.

40) Ohio v Robinette (519 U.S. 33, 136 L. Ed. 2d 347 (1996) U.S. Supreme Court

There is nothing in the federal constitution’s Fourth Amendment requiring that a lawfully seized defendant (traffic stop) be advised that he is “free to go,” before defendant’s consent to search will be recognized as voluntary.

41) United States v Finke (85 F. 3d 1275 (1996) Seventh Circuit

After traffic stop, defendant, who was a passenger when vehicle was stopped, would not have felt free to drive away from scene, where he had just been told by officer that a canine unit was being called.

The officer did not ask defendant if he would be willing to wait for the canine unit.

42) United States v Carrazco (91 F. 3d 65 (1996) Eighth Circuit

Search of defendant’s truck after a traffic stop was valid where the officer received permission to conduct a dog sniff.

After one dog showed interest and another dog gave a positive alert, the officer had probable cause to believe drugs were present.

Police may then search the automobile and all containers within in.

43) Maryland v Wilson (137 L. Ed. 2d 41, 519 U.S. 408 (1997) U.S. Supreme Court

A police officer making traffic stop may order passengers to get out of the car pending completion of stop.

44) United States v Wood (106 F. 3d 942 (1997) Tenth Circuit

During a routine traffic stop, officers are permitted to ask questions, examine documentation and run computer verifications to determine that driver has valid license, and is entitled to operate vehicle, and officers may detain driver and vehicle as long as necessary to make such determinations and to issue citation or warning.

During a routine traffic stop, to ensure officer’s safety, officer may obtain information regarding detainee’s criminal history.

Failure to consent to search cannot form any part of basis for reasonable suspicion.

Unusual travel plans and/or inconsistencies in information provided to officer may give rise to reasonable suspicion.

45) United States v Adams (110 F. 3d 31 (1997) Eighth Circuit

Officers stopped the suspect for a traffic violation, then arrested him on an outstanding warrant. The suspect’s truck was inventoried and stored.

Officers developed information that the truck contained contraband. A narcotics dog was brought to the storage yard and the dog searched the exterior and interior of the truck. The dog alerted to the console between the front seats.

Officers applied for a search warrant based upon the positive canine alert and the initial information. The judge issued the warrant and contraband was located.

46) United States v Holloman (113 F. 3d 192 (1997) Eleventh Circuit

Police officers did not violate the Fourth Amendment when, during traffic stop for traffic violation as part of a drug interdiction operation, they conducted a canine sniff of the exterior of defendant’s vehicle, where the canine unit was on the scene, when defendant denied consent to search vehicle, and he thus was not delayed by the canine sniff.

47) United States v Hunnicutt (135 F. 3d 1345 (1998) Tenth Circuit

Officers, who had probable cause based upon a positive canine alert on a package from inside a vehicle, properly impounded the vehicle to later search it.

48) United States v Beck (140 F. 3d 1129 (1998) Eighth Circuit

Initial consensual nature of encounter between officer and defendant, who was stopped for traffic infraction, continued until defendant asked what would happen if he refused to permit a search of his vehicle.

At that point, officer informed defendant that if he refused a consent search, the officer would have a canine unit conduct a sniff of the vehicle. The defendant was now detained.

49) United States v Winningham (140 F. 3d 1328 (1998) Tenth Circuit

Officers who stopped a van on a traffic stop, opened the van’s sliding door to conduct a visual search of the interior for additional occupants. The officer requested a narcotics dog and the officer left the sliding door open.

The drug dog’s act of leaping into the van through the open sliding door and searching the interior was unreasonable, because the conduct of the officers “facilitated” the dog’s entry into the van.

50) United States v Blaze (143 F. 3d 585 (1998) Tenth Circuit

Upon sniffing a vehicle, once a dog alerts to a container, probable cause exists to open and search it.

51) United States v Palacios-Suarez (149 F. 3d 770 (1998) Eighth Circuit

Even if an initial traffic stop was illegal, due to officer’s mistaken belief that tinted windows applied to vehicles that were registered in another state, the defendant consented to the search of his vehicle and the dog alert to the interior of the car was admissible.

52) United States v Huguenin (154 F. 3d 547 (1998) Sixth Circuit

Officers set up a “ruse” DUI checkpoint with signs indicating it was _ mile ahead. There was no such checkpoint.

Officers, without a traffic violation or reasonable suspicion stopped motorists who took highway exit prior to the ruse checkpoint, then ran narcotics dogs around the exterior of the vehicles for a canine sniff, violated the Fourth Amendment.

(See City of Indianapolis v Edmond)

53) United States v Glinton (154 F. 3d 1245 (1998) Eleventh Circuit

A canine sniff of a vehicle is not considered a “search” for Fourth Amendment purposes.

54) United States v Anchondo (156 F. 3d 1043 (1998) Tenth Circuit

A warrantless pat-down search of an individual, after drug-sniffing canine had alerted to the presence of drugs in his vehicle, was a valid search incident to the arrest, even though the arrest did not occur until after the pat-down search was performed.

The canine positive alert to the vehicle provided probable cause for the arrest, and since no contraband was located in the vehicle, this increased the chances that the contraband was on the driver’s body.

The actual arrest was not too remote, as it occurred immediately after drugs were found on driver’s body.

55) United States v Castro (166 F. 3d 728 (1999) Fifth Circuit

Driver and occupant of a car were arrested for traffic violations. The car was impounded and brought to the sheriff’s office. A drug-sniffing canine searched the exterior of the car and alerted.

The drugs that were found in the vehicle were admissible, given that the drugs inevitably would have been discovered during authorized inventory search.

56) United States v Owens (167 F. 3d 739 (1999) First Circuit

Officers who have probable cause to search a vehicle can search every part of the vehicle and its contents that may conceal the object of the search.

The existence of probable cause to search an automobile based on an alert by a drug dog depends on the dog’s reliability.

57) United States v Lozano (171 F. 3d 1129 (1999) Seventh Circuit

The driver of a truck was arrested for a traffic violation. A narcotics dog arrived and “assisted in the inventory of the bed of the truck.” The dog alerted to duffel bags.

The opening of the duffel bags in the bed of the truck was a valid inventory search where it was conducted pursuant to the police department’s standard routine verbal policy of opening all closed containers that might contain valuables.

58) United States v $404,905 in U.S. Currency (182 F. 3d 643 (1999)
Eighth Circuit

A valid traffic stop may not be challenged because it was pretextual for another investigation. While conducting the stop, officers may ask motorist routine questions such as destination and purpose. However, the individual is not obligated to answer and cannot be arrested for refusing to answer.

A period of 30 seconds to two minutes that it took for a canine to search the exterior of a vehicle was not a detention, even though the traffic stop was complete and there was no reasonable suspicion.

When an officer makes a traffic stop and has immediate disposal of a canine, it is reasonable to require the motorist’s detention be momentarily extended for a canine sniff of the vehicle’s exterior.

59) United States v Dortch (199 F. 3d 193 (1999) Fifth Circuit

A dog sniff does not constitute a search or seizure under the Fourth Amendment.

Once a police dog trained to sniff for drugs “alerted” to driver’s side of the car, probable cause to search the vehicle was established.

Although detention of driver, who was stopped for traffic offense, pending completion of computer check for outstanding warrants was reasonable, continued detention of driver to wait for arrival of canine unit exceeded scope of permissible stop, absent probable cause for extended detention.

60) United States v Garcia (205 F. 3d 1182 (2000) Ninth Circuit

Officers had probable cause to believe the trunk of a car contained narcotics, and to conduct a warrantless search, once a narcotics dog alerted.

The fact that the vehicle had been impounded and towed to the police station did not prevent officers from completing their warrantless search.

61) United States v Foley (206 F. 3d 802 (2000) Eighth Circuit

A reasonable investigation for a traffic stop may include:

• Asking for driver’s license and registration;
• Requesting driver to sit in patrol car;
• Asking driver his destination and purpose;
• Asking similar questions of vehicle occupants to verify information provided from driver.

Duration of traffic stop was reasonable, where officer obtained and verified information; this information created reasonable suspicion justifying a brief delay pending arrival of drug dog. The entire stop lasted under 30 minutes.

62) City of Indianapolis v Edmond (121 S. Ct. 447, 148 L. Ed. 2d 333 (2000) U.S. Supreme Court

Roadblocks established to interdict unlawful drugs violate the Fourth Amendment.

A roadblock must be a bona fide effort to implement an authorized regulatory policy, rather than a pretext for a dragnet search for criminals.

The Supreme Court of the United States has upheld brief, suspicionless seizures in these cases:

• A fixed checkpoint designed to intercept illegal aliens;
• Sobriety checkpoint aimed at removing drunk drivers from the road;
• A roadblock to verify drivers’ licenses and registrations.

This decision does not affect the validity of border searches or searches in airports and government buildings. Nor does it impair police officers’ ability to act appropriately upon information that they properly learn during a lawful checkpoint stop.

The fact that officers walk a narcotics detection dog around the exterior of a car during a checkpoint does not transform the seizure into a search.

NOTE: Post September 11, 2001, fixed checkpoints designed to intercept illegal aliens are now being conducted nationwide.

63) United States v Machuca-Barrera (261 F. 3d 425 (2001) Fifth Circuit

Because stops at an immigration checkpoint need not be justified by reasonable suspicion, court does not ask the officer to articulate a justification for the stop. Instead, the justification comes from its problematic purpose.

While a border patrol agent at an immigration checkpoint may refer a car to secondary inspection for any reason or no reason at all, the length of the detention is still limited by the immigration-related justification for the stop.

Border patrol agents may only conduct a drug-dog sniff if it does not lengthen a stop or if they obtain consent.

64) United States v Lebrun (261 F. 3d 731 (2001) Eighth Circuit

Twenty minute detention, based upon reasonable suspicion, following traffic stop while officer waited arrival of drug dog was not excessive.

Police cannot reasonably be expected to have dogs available for every police officer at every moment.

65) United States v Morgan (270 F. 3d 625 (2001) Eighth Circuit

A dog sniff of the exterior of a vehicle is not a search.

Defendant’s consent to search vehicle was not voluntary, after officer told her he would conduct a canine sniff on the exterior of the vehicle, if she did not consent.

A short detention of vehicle’s occupants while officer walked his drug dog around the vehicle following the stop for speeding, did not violate the occupant’s rights. The dog was at scene from beginning and it took only a short time to walk dog over to the vehicle where it alerted to presence of drugs.

66) United States v Jones (275 F. 3d 648 (2001) Seventh Circuit

Drug sniffing dog’s alert to the presence of narcotics in vehicle, which had been lawfully stopped by police for traffic violation, established probable cause justifying search of the vehicle.

Actions of police officer in entering vehicle and moving it forward five feet so as to make it easier for drug sniffing dog to move around vehicle, although improper, did not render unreasonable for purpose of the Fourth Amendment. Subsequent search of the vehicle performed by police after dog alerted to presence of drugs, thus establishing probable cause.

67) United States v Linkous (285 F. 3d 716 (2002) Eighth Circuit

A short detention for a dog sniff after completion of a traffic stop does not violate the Fourth Amendment.

The vehicle was delayed no more than seven or eight minutes until the dog completed its sniff of the van.

68) United States v Carter (300 F. 3d 415 (2002) Fourth Circuit

Here, the government argued that the drug dog’s alerting on the driver door gave probable cause to search the entire vehicle. Probable cause must be tailored to specific compartments and containers within an automobile. The key is whether the dog alerted in the precise vicinity of the area searched.

In this case, the court found that the dog’s alerting to the driver door was sufficiently close to the trunk to give officers probable cause to believe it contained contraband.

69) United States v Gregory (302 F. 3d 805 (2002) Eighth Circuit

The Fourth Amendment grants an officer during a routine traffic stop latitude to:

• Check driver’s identification and vehicle registration;
• Ask the driver to step out of the vehicle and over to the patrol car;
• Inquire into the driver’s destination and purpose for the trip;
• Undertake similar questioning of the occupants to verify the information.

Officers need no reason to support the scan of a vehicle with a drug sniffing dog.

A dog sniff of car following traffic stop did not unreasonably extend the length of the detention, where there is no evidence that the dog sniff itself was unduly lengthy, and just over 20 minutes elapsed from the beginning of the stop to the completion of the dog sniff.

The drug sniffing dog’s alert on the vehicle provided probable cause to search the vehicle, despite contention that the driver’s pit-bull dog distracted the drug sniffing dog.

The drug sniffing dog was found to be reliable based upon:

• Dog was highly trained;
• Dog received satisfactory certification;
• Dog performed her duties flawlessly;
• Dog had never given a false positive alert.

70) United States v Mercado (307 F. 3d 1226 (2002) Tenth Circuit

When officers have probable cause to believe that an automobile contains contraband, the Fourth Amendment does not require them to get a warrant, even when they have opportunity to seek one.

The automobile exception to the search warrant requirement was applicable to vehicle that was temporarily immobile due to mechanical problem, where problem was readily repairable and vehicle was at open, public repair shop to which driver had access.

71) United States v Duffaut (314 F. 3d 203 (2002) Fifth Circuit

Stopped motorist’s consent was not needed in order for officers to perform free air search of vehicle by walking around it with drug sniffing dog.

Once drug sniffing dog has alerted to presence of narcotics, officers have sufficient probable cause to conduct a search of stopped vehicle.

72) United States v Hernandez (314 F. 3d 430 (2002) Ninth Circuit

At a Mexico/U.S. border crossing, a narcotics dog alerted to a vehicle in the primary inspection area. Upon the dog alert, border agents detention did not become an arrest when the agents removed three occupants from the minivan, temporarily placed defendants in handcuffs and took them into an office and left them un-cuffed there. The detention became an arrest only after agents positively identified marijuana and the defendant’s were again handcuffed and advised of their Miranda rights.

Border agents had probable cause to arrest the rear seat passenger in the minivan. The vehicle was known by officers to be commonly used for drug trafficking, agent interviewed the driver, the passenger acted suspiciously, seemed very nervous and stiff, tried to avoid eye contact with the agent, marijuana was found within reach of the passenger and the amount of marijuana was beyond that for personal use.

73) United States v Moreno-Vargas (315 F. 3d 489 (2002) Fifth Circuit

Checkpoint with primary purpose of identifying illegal immigrants is constitutional, regardless of whether checkpoint has secondary purpose of drug interdiction, unless length of detention is insufficiently limited.

Immigration stop at fixed checkpoint was reasonable, regardless of checkpoint’s alleged secondary purpose of drug interdiction, since the checkpoint had its primary programmatic purpose enforcement of immigration laws. The permanent presence of a dog cross-trained to detect drugs as well as humans did not affect duration of stop.

74) United States v Johnson (323 F. 3d 566 (2003) Seventh Circuit

In determining whether search of defendant’s vehicle was justified by probable cause, district court could not disregard alert by drug dog on grounds the dog’s handler did not testify at suppression hearing, when another officer, who observed the alert from a distance, did testify. The handler was not the only officer capable of interpreting the behavior of the dog, which was an aggressive alert, as alerting to the presence of drugs or drug infested currency.

75) United States v Moore (329 F. 3d 399 (2003) Fifth Circuit

Dog sniff of vehicle is not Fourth Amendment search, such as will require individualized suspicion of wrongdoing.

Alert by dog after sniffing motorist’s vehicle for presence of drugs gave officers probable cause to search the vehicle.

Automobiles and other conveyances may be searched without a warrant, provided that there is probable cause to believe the car contains contraband.

76) United States v Yang (345 F. 3d 650 (2003) Eighth Circuit

Officer did not detain defendant by asking him for permission to search his vehicle after the traffic stop was over, where, after completing the traffic stop, officer immediately told the defendant he was free to go and asked for consent to search the vehicle.

When oral consent is voluntarily given, the absence of a signed consent form is immaterial.

Once the drug dog alerted to the defendant’s vehicle after the traffic stop, officer had probable cause to search the vehicle without a warrant.

77) United States v Ibarra (345 F. 3d 711 (2003) Ninth Circuit

Fact that otherwise reasonable traffic stop for speeding was made as pretext to investigate driver’s suspected drug activity did not render stop unreasonable.

Presence of drug sniffing dog at location of valid traffic stop did not render stop and search of defendant’s vehicle unreasonable.

Officer’s had probable cause to search defendant’s vehicle after valid traffic stop, DEA provided information suspecting the defendant and drug sniffing dog alerted to presence of a drug’s SCENT in the vehicle. The handler saw the dog alert indicating that the dog smelled the ODOR of narcotics emanating from the vehicle, that would lead a reasonable officer to believe narcotics would be found inside the vehicle.

Officers may conduct a search of a vehicle without a warrant as long as they have probable cause.