Copyright ©2012 NPR. For personal, noncommercial use only. See Terms of Use. For other uses, prior permission required.

ROBERT SIEGEL, HOST:

It's ALL THINGS CONSIDERED from NPR News. I'm Robert Siegel.

AUDIE CORNISH, HOST:

And I'm Audie Cornish. Dogs were the subject of the day at the U.S. Supreme Court. The justices heard arguments in two cases testing what, if any, limits there are to the police using drug-sniffing dogs. NPR legal affairs correspondent Nina Totenberg explains.

NINA TOTENBERG, BYLINE: The protagonists in this story are Franky and Aldo. Franky, a chocolate Labrador, had a near spotless record as a drug detection dog in Miami-Dade County. And the question is whether his human police partners violated the Fourth Amendment's ban on unreasonable searches when they took him up to the front porch of a private home, and when the dog alerted to drugs inside, the cops used that as a justification for getting a search warrant. Aldo had a less august dog detection pedigree, and the question was whether his qualifications as an expert were sufficient to justify a dog sniff of a truck.

Lawyer Gregory Garre represented Florida police, prosecutors and the dogs in both cases. Starting off with Franky's sniff at the home.

GREGORY GARRE: What's different and fundamentally distinct about dog sniff is they only detect unlawful activity, specifically the contraband that the dog has been trained to detect.

TOTENBERG: But in court today, that argument got hammered by justices of every ideological stripe. Justice Kennedy: I can't accept that as a reasonable argument that if there's contraband, all the rules go out the window. Justice Sotomayor: If you have no expectation of privacy for contraband, why bother with a search warrant at all? Justice Ginsburg: If this sort of dog sniff of one home is OK, then police could just go down the street with a dog going to every door. Answer: They can do that just as they can knock on every door.

Justice Scalia: It isn't sniffing in the abstract. It's sniffing at the front door, a private area. Answer: It's well established that there's implied consent for police, Girl Scouts or trick-or-treaters to go up to the front door. Justice Breyer: You do have the expectation that someone can come to the door but not with a large animal who spends five to 15 minutes going back and forth sniffing the premises. Justice Kagan observed that the court has repeatedly protected the home from technological surveillance without a warrant.

Replied Garre: Franky's nose is not technology. Justice Kagan: So if we invented a machine called a smellomatic to detect those odors in the home, the police could not use it in the same way? Answer: Dog sniffs are different because they involve the dog's God-given sense of smell. Garre's adversary, public defender Howard Blumberg, representing the accused marijuana grower, got quite a grilling too. Justice Kennedy called equally unacceptable his argument that people have a right to keep secret anything they want in their homes.

Blumberg was more successful with his second argument that the dog sniff at the front door of a home is a trespass on private property. The Supreme Court has never ruled on dog sniffs at a private home. It has said dog sniffs are permissible without a warrant in other spheres - cars stopped on the road for other reasons, for instance, or luggage at airports. But as today's second case illustrated, even when a search could be legal, there can be questions about the dog's credentials.

In this case, Aldo, a German shepherd, sniffed and alerted for drugs in a truck stopped for an expired license plate. But two weeks later, he sniffed the same truck and alerted, but this time, no drugs were found. Aldo had completed 120 hours of basic drug detection training two years earlier but had not been recertified in 16 months, a defect that lawyer Garre admitted today was a lapse. Public defender Glen Gifford told the justices that since there is no national or state certification standard, judges should look, among other things, to field records of the dog's other searches to determine his reliability. The justices, however, seemed to think that was a step too far. Nina Totenberg, NPR News, Washington.

Copyright © 2012 NPR. All rights reserved. No quotes from the materials contained herein may be used in any media without attribution to NPR. This transcript is provided for personal, noncommercial use only, pursuant to our Terms of Use. Any other use requires NPR's prior permission. Visit our permissions page for further information.

NPR transcripts are created on a rush deadline by a contractor for NPR, and accuracy and availability may vary. This text may not be in its final form and may be updated or revised in the future. Please be aware that the authoritative record of NPR's programming is the audio.

Comments

 

Please keep your community civil. All comments must follow the NPR.org Community rules and terms of use, and will be moderated prior to posting. NPR reserves the right to use the comments we receive, in whole or in part, and to use the commenter's name and location, in any medium. See also the Terms of Use, Privacy Policy and Community FAQ.