MOTEL SNIFFS:
Summary:
Using a narcotic detector dog in common areas, such as the corridors outside rooms, to conduct a canine sniff, is not a search. You must have permission from the motel owner or agent to conduct the sniff.
A) United States v Burns (624 F. 2d 95 (1980) Tenth Circuit
Arresting officer’s use of a drug detecting police dog prior to procurement of a search warrant was not a search.
Mere sniffing of locked briefcase in motel room by drug dog was not a search.
B) United States v Rivera (825 F. 2d 152 (1987) Seventh Circuit
Subjecting luggage, which had been seized from hotel room under plain view exception to warrant requirement on theory that it contained contraband, to a narcotics detector dog was not a search.
C) United States v Roby (122 F. 3d 1120 (1997) Eighth Circuit
A warrantless canine sniff conducted in the corridor outside the defendant’s hotel room was reasonable.
Just as evidence in plain view of officers may be searched without warrant, evidence in plain smell may be detected without warrant.
Trained dog’s detection of odor in common corridor does not contravene the Fourth Amendment.
Officers can secure defendant’s motel room while waiting for search warrant to issue, after a positive canine alert from corridor outside room.
D) United States v Esquilin (208 F. 3d 315 (2000) First Circuit
Dog’s sniffing behavior in motel room while held on leash by officer was not a search. The defendant had invited the officers into his room.
Important factor in determining whether dog ’s sniffing behavior constitutes a search is not whether the sniff occurs in a public place but whether the observing officer or the sniffing canine are legally present at their vantage when their respective senses are aroused by obviously incriminating evidence.
E) United States v Carter (315 F. 3d 651 (2003) Sixth Circuit
The plain view exception to the warrant requirement applies when:
1) The law enforcement officer did not violate the Fourth Amendment in arriving at the place where the evidence could be plainly viewed;
2) The item is in plain view;
3) The incriminating character of the evidence is immediately apparent.
A warrantless entry into a home or motel room will be upheld when circumstances would lead a person of reasonable caution to conclude that the evidence of criminal activity would probably be destroyed within the time necessary to obtain a search warrant.
If, during an initial lawful intrusion into a person’s home, law enforcement officers plainly view incriminating evidence, it may be admitted into evidence pursuant to the plain view doctrine.