Drug sniffing dogs – you see them at the airport, the bus station, and on television. They serve an important purpose for law enforcement and the public. That is, they smell drugs when humans cannot. Moreover, the dogs do it in a manner that is not invasive to the people being search. However, there are some rules, like the 4th Amendment to constitution, that restrict how these dogs can be used.

For example, law enforcement can’t just bust down your door without a warrant and take a dog through your house to smell everything. When it comes to your home, the Fourth Amendment to the Unites Constitution was created protect against such unreasonable entries. However, the courts are giving law enforcement more and more “leeway” on how they use man’s best friend to overcome the constitutional hurdles of the Fourth Amendment.

Look for example at a 2010 Arizona Court of Appeals case, State v. Guillen. In Guillen, one of questions asked was: if consent to search a home is valid, when the resident giving consent was unaware of a dog-sniff conducted on her property, without a warrant, before she arrived home. That is, law enforcement went on her property without a warrant, had the dog sniff the garage and the dog smelled something. Then they asked the homeowner to search the house. At the heart of the case is the fact she consented to search.

One could could argue this way: law enforcement violated her fourth amendment rights, used the information they got illegally to help make an arrest that merely appeared legal. After all, would the resident have consented if she had known that a potentially illegal search / entry on her property had just occurred?

The above theory was essentially adopted by the defendant’s attorney in front of the Arizona Court of Appeals. They posited that the initial dog sniff on the property without the owner’s knowledge was illegal police misconduct in the first place. Thus, the later consent was not valid, and the entire search of the home would be illegal.

In general, courts consider the term “Consent” to mean the voluntary, and un-coerced permission of a person which allows a government official to take a specified action without a warrant.

However, the court disagreed with this argument after looking at the chain of events. The Court stated that the relationship between the sniff and the consent was the determining factor. For the consent to be invalid as the defendant’s attorney suggested, the consent must have been caused as a result of police misconduct. The fact that the resident did not know about the dog sniff, and she was not forced to allow police in the home, and she was not forced to allow police in the home, means that the consent was not a result of the dog sniff, and was not invalid on that argument alone.

It appears the court did not address the actual constitutionality of the dog sniff in the driveway. Consequently, the door may be left open to argue the constitutionally of this type search in the future if the facts distinguishable.

If you have question about a specific legal issue please contact the Koplow Law Firm.

Lawrence Koplow

When being stopped by an officer there are many things that go through a driver’s head. “Was I speeding?” “Is there a taillight out?” “Did I swerve?” On the other hand, most people don’t usually think “did I use my blinker appropriately.” However, the issue of the appropriate use of a blinker, was one of the primary questions decided by the recent Arizona Court of Appeals Case: Arizona v. Douglas Dean Starr.

In the Starr case, a DPS officer was driving along the highway behind Starr. The officer reported that he observed Starr following the car behind him too closely, and also changing lanes multiple times. Also the officer says he observed Starr, without using a turn signal, change lanes and pass a large commercial truck that was merging in the same lane, onto the highway. The officer pulled Starr over. During the stop, the officer found marijuana and other drug paraphernalia, resulting in confiscating the property, and multiple drug possession charges.

Starr challenged the traffic stop as being unconstitutional. That is, his attorneys argued there was not a constitutionally valid reason to pull his car over. If this were the case, then the drug charges would be dismissed. Their specific argument was that the wording of the statute that regulated the use of a turn signal, only mandates a driver use a blinker, when a driver makes a full 90 degree turn. They asserted the law does  not apply to situations when a driver  merely change lanes. This argument required the court to look at the statute and interpret the law’s true meaning.

The interpretation of this particular statute had not yet been analyzed by the Arizona courts until this case.  In its decision, the court looked to similar rulings in other states. Many other jurisdictions held that a turn signal is required when any type of movement of one car would affect the course of another car. For example, if there was no car in sight for miles, a person would not need to use a blinker.  The reason being, there is no chance of another car, having to change their pattern of driving due to the lack of blinker use.  Put another way, there are no safety reason requiring notice of a lane change. The Arizona Court of Appeals ruled that because the wording of the Arizona statute specifies the necessity for safety, and that there were other cars on the road when Starr changed lanes, the use of a blinker was required. Thus, the conviction was upheld.

Consequently, to be successful on this type of motion you need both: (1) a factual scenario with light or no traffic; and (2) you must argue the safety of the lane change (i.e no other cars needed to brake; no other cars took evasive action; traffic was not disrupted) .

If you have question about a specific legal issue please contact the Koplow Law Firm.

Lawrence Koplow