On Point: 3. Dog sniff

State v. Gary Monroe Scull, 2015 WI 22, 3/5/16, affirming a published court of appeals decision; lead opinion by Justice Bradley; case activity (including briefs)

In a decision that fails to engage the real issue presented in the case, the supreme court holds that the good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule recognized in State v. Eason, 2001 WI 98, 245 Wis. 2d 206, 629 N.W.2d 625, allows the admission of evidence seized using a search warrant that was based on information collected in violation of Florida v. Jardines, 569 U.S. ___, 133 S. Ct. 1409, 1417-18 (2013).

On review of published court of appeals decision; case activity

Issue (composed by On Point)

Did the good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule apply to a search of a home conducted in reliance on a search warrant that was itself based on a search by a drug-sniffing dog that violated Florida v. Jardines, 569 U.S. ___, 133 S. Ct. 1409 (2013)?

State v. Gary Monroe Scull, 2014 WI App 17, petition for review granted, 5/22/14, affirmed, 2015 WI 22; case activity

Police violated Scull’s Fourth Amendment rights under Florida v. Jardines, 569 U.S. ___, 133 S. Ct. 1409, 1417-18 (2013), when they brought a drug-sniffing dog to the front door of his residence without a warrant or probable cause.

Florida v. Jardines, USSC No. 11-564, 3/26/13

United States Supreme Court decision, affirming Jardines v. State, 73 So. 3d 34 (2011)

In this 5-to-4 decision, the Supreme Court holds that using a drug-sniffing dog on a homeowner’s front porch to investigate the contents of the home is a “search” within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment. Because the search was conducted without probable cause,

Florida v. Harris, USSC No. 11-817, 2/19/13

United States Supreme Court decision, overruling Harris v. Florida, 71 So. 3d 756 (2011)

In a unanimous decision addressing the question of when a drug-sniffing dog’s alert constitutes probable cause, the Supreme Court overturned the Florida Supreme Court’s requirement that the state produce records of the dog’s reliability in the field in order to support probable cause.

State v. Dawn M. Fletcher, 2011AP1356-CR, District 3, 3/27/12

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Fletcher: Earl J. Luaders, III; case activity

The court upholds search of a car following a drug dog alert which occurred while an officer was still processing a warning ticket for a conceded traffic violation:

¶7        On appeal, Fletcher concedes the initial stop was lawful.  She argues the dog sniff was illegal because the officer had no reasonable suspicion to detain the occupants of the vehicle to request a dog sniff.  

Question Presented (from Cert Petition): 

Whether the Florida Supreme Court has decided an important federal question in a way that conflicts with the established Fourth Amendment precedent of this Court by holding that an alert by a well-trained narcotics detection dog certified to detect illegal contraband is insufficient to establish probable cause for the search of a vehicle?

Docket

Florida supreme court decision (71 So.3d 756)

Scotusblog page

The Dog Whisperer might want to get its own Supreme Court correspondent.

Question Presented: 

Whether a dog sniff at the front door of a suspected grow house by a trained narcotics detection dog is a Fourth Amendment search requiring probable cause?

Scotusblog Page

Florida supreme court decision, State v. Jardines (4/14/11)

Coverage by Lyle Denniston, Orin Kerr (“fun stuff for Fourth Amendment nerds”), Kent Scheidegger (“This is solid police work”), 

State v. Jamie L. Salonen, 2011 WI App 157 (recommended for publication); for Salonen: Robert J. Wells, Jr.; case activity

¶1        The trial court in this case granted Jamie L. Salonen’s motion to suppress evidence obtained after she asked to leave the scene of a roadside stop of a vehicle in which she was a passenger, which request was denied by police.  A passage in Arizona v.

State v. Ramon Lopez Arias, 2008 WI 84, on Certification
For Arias: Lora B. Cerone, SPD, Madison

Issue/Holding: A dog sniff is no more a “search” under the Wisconsin than the U.S. Constitution, at least with respect to vehicles:

¶22      We are unwilling to undertake such a departure here. First, we note that there is no constitutionally protected interest in possessing contraband under the United States Constitution,