The other is that a police dog's sniff cannot result in probable cause for a search for two reasons: 1) because although the odor (only dogs can smell) can be identified by a canine as a narcotic, the dog cannot determine the quantity (if any) that remains in the location, and 2) the sniff itself is considered by many as a search in itself because although it is only done on the exterior of items, if a positive alert is made, a legal, more thorough, search will be conducted based on this. .
I believe that although the number of persons caught for trafficking and possessing narcotics would decrease tremendously, a police canine "sniff" should be considered a full search, and the Fourth Amendment prerequisites for that search should be adhered to. A simple scenario can be given to support my belief. .
The first is of an innocent driver of a vehicle who is stopped for a traffic infraction by a member of the local police department's K-9 unit. During the stop, as is very common, this officer walks his narcotic detection dog around the target vehicle. The dog detects a drug, and against the wishes of the driver, the stop turns into a search of the entire vehicle (including trunk and engine compartment). Unknown to the police officer or the driver of the vehicle, when the driver gave a ride to one his friends about thirty minutes prior to the stop, the friend had a bag of cocaine in his pocket. The old scent of this cocaine is what the dog is alerting on. After an hour and forty minutes and no narcotics being found in the car, the stop ends in a simple verbal warning to the driver. The problem is that in this search, probable cause as it is defined by the U.S. Constitution was never established. The search, however, is permitted by the courts because a dog alert is consid!.
ered to be enough evidence to establish probable cause and therefore warrant a search (ruled by the U.S. Court of Appeals - (No.
