TRAIN & TRAIN DEPOT SNIFFS:
Summary:
Baggage Search:
Checked Baggage:
Sniff of checked baggage is not a search. Movement of checked baggage to facilitate a canine sniff is allowed.
Carry-on Baggage:
In order for police officers to briefly detain carry-on baggage for a canine sniff, they must have either consent or reasonable suspicion supported by articulable objective facts that the baggage contains drugs.
Drug courier profile, without more, does not create reasonable suspicion.
Failure to consent to search cannot form any part of basis for reasonable suspicion.
After a trained narcotics dog positive alert to baggage for narcotics, officers have probable cause to seize the baggage and obtain search warrant.
Removal of carry-on luggage from the overhead baggage area to facilitate a canine sniff, is not a search.
The courts are divided on the issue of pushing on sides of an object to expel air from inside in an effort to smell contents. The latest ruling states that this action is a search.
You cannot “physically manipulate” carry-on luggage to feel the bag in an exploratory manner.
A) United States v Thame (846 F. 2d 200 (1988) Third Circuit
Agents in the lobby of a train station contacted the defendant. The defendant refused a consent search of his luggage, but did consent to a canine sniff of his luggage. The canine sniff indicated there were drugs in the bag and a search warrant was obtained based upon the alert.
B) United States v Whitehead (849 F. 2d 849 (1988) Fourth Circuit
A passenger train sleeping compartment is not a “temporary home.”
Police are not required to have probable cause before they could bring trained dogs into passenger train sleeping compartment to sniff defendant’s luggage. Police are required to have reasonable suspicion as to justify conducting the dog sniff, as they did in this case.
C) United States v Tartaglia (864 F. 2d 837 (1989) District of Columbia Circuit
There was probable cause to search a train roomette when a narcotics detector dog indicated an alert at the vent of the door to the roomette.
The warrantless search of the roomette was justified under exigent circumstances exception to the warrant requirement.
D) United States v Massac (867 F. 2d 174 (1989) Third Circuit
Sniff test of luggage by specially trained drug-sniffing dog did not amount to an illegal search because luggage was in the custody of a common carrier (Amtrak).
Police had probable cause to arrest defendant at railroad station for illegal narcotics activity, after trained drug-sniffing dog had alerted to his suitcase.
E) United States v Battista (876 F. 2d 201 (1989) District of Columbia Circuit
Law enforcement officers had sufficient reasonable suspicion when a drug dog alerted outside the defendant’s train roomette. The dog was taken down the corridor of the train car and alerted to the door of the roomette.
F) United States v Carrasquillo (877 F. 2d 73 (1989) District of Columbia Circuit
These factors established reasonable suspicion to detain defendant and his luggage temporarily and to have narcotics detection dog sniff bags:
• defendant was traveling by train from source city;
• had made a one-way reservation on short notice;
• changed date only a few minutes before departure;
• had paid cash;
• had provided no contact telephone;
• arrived at train station shortly prior to departure time;
• was traveling under assumed name;
• had used second assumed name in making first reservation;
• was visibly nervous;
• either carrying no luggage or falsely denied bag was his.
After the narcotics detection dog sniffed and alerted to the bag, the bag was searched under the abandonment warrant exception.
G) United States v Colyer (878 F. 2d 469 (1989) District of Columbia Circuit
A canine sniff for narcotics of a train sleeper compartment from a public corridor did not constitute a search.
Lawful canine sniff for narcotics of train sleeper compartment from public corridor, that resulted in canine alerting, provided probable cause for seizure and search of train passenger’s bags.
Exigent circumstances justify exception to the Fourth Amendment warrant clause.
H) United States v Trayer (898 F. 2d 805 (1990) District of Columbia Circuit
Narcotic detector dog’s alert from the corridor of a passenger train to a train roomette gave probable cause to search that roomette.
Probable cause that train roomette contained drugs justified search of entire roomette, without bringing dog inside to sniff more directly.
I) United States v Edwards (898 F. 2d 1273 (1990) Seventh Circuit
These factors established reasonable suspicion to detain defendant and his luggage temporarily and to have a narcotics detection dog sniff bags:
• passenger had arrived from Los Angeles, a major narcotics distribution center;
• he repeatedly made eye contact with undercover officers;
• he became visibly nervous during questioning;
• his story did not match that of separately questioned companion.
The defendant was issued a receipt for his bags and he immediately left on another train. About 15 minutes later, the narcotics’ detector dog alerted to the bags and a search warrant was obtained.
J) United States v Sullivan (903 F. 2d 1093 (1990) Seventh Circuit
These factors gave officers reasonable suspicion to detain defendant’s luggage for a canine sniff:
• Passenger was traveling from source city;
• He had purchased a one-way train ticket on date of departure;
• He paid cash for the ticket;
• He carried only one small bag, despite long distance of trip;
• He appeared to divert his eyes from those of officers when they followed him.
Detention of his luggage for 45 minutes until dog sniff for narcotics was performed was reasonable. Passenger was informed that inspection could take place in a short period of time, and he not only declined to wait, but also effectively abandoned the bag by declining to accept a receipt.
K) United States v Nurse (916 F. 2d 20 (1990) District of Columbia Circuit
Police officer developed reasonable suspicion of the defendant’s illicit drug activity to justify detention of defendant’s bag for canine sniff.
Detention of the defendant during the canine sniff of her bag for 20 to 30 minutes was reasonable.
L) United States v Ferguson (935 F. 2d 1518 (1991) Seventh Circuit
Officers developed reasonable suspicion to detain a train passenger carrying two bags, based upon:
• Passenger arrived from source city;
• He was carrying a bag secured with a padlock;
• He was traveling under assumed name;
• He lied about his destination;
• He gave conflicting answers about contents of the bag;
• He was furtive, nervous, and avoided eye contact.
After refusing consent, the passenger’s bag was seized for a canine sniff. The passenger was allowed to leave, a canine alerted to the bag and a warrant was obtained.
M) United States v $639,558 U.S. Currency (955 F. 2d 712 (1992) District of Columbia Circuit
A narcotics detector dog “sweeping” the corridor of a train alerted to luggage. The defendant refused consent to his luggage. Police then arrested the defendant.
The court ruled that the search of the defendant’s luggage could not be justified as incident to arrest.
Discovery of the money in the luggage during an inventory search was not inevitable, the defendant would have been released absent the search of the luggage.
N) United States v Ward (961 F. 2d 1526 (1992) Tenth Circuit
These factors did not raise reasonable suspicion for an investigative detention:
• suspect paid $600 in cash;
• traveling one-way from Flagstaff to Kansas City;
• had given telephone number from Tucson at time of reservation;
• had reserved the largest private room on train although traveling alone.
As a result of the unlawful detention, the dog sniff resulting in seizure of drugs was illegal.
O) United States v Bloom (975 F. 2d 1447 (1992) Tenth Circuit
These factors did not raise reasonable suspicion for an investigative detention:
• traveling alone from source city;
• suspect paid cash for one-way ticket;
• stayed in private train compartment;
• kept high quality luggage in compartment.
As a result of the unlawful detention, the dog sniff resulting in seizure of drugs was illegal.
P) United States v Hall (978 F. 2d 616 (1992) Tenth Circuit
Officers may seize and briefly detain traveler’s luggage provided they have reasonable suspicion the luggage contains drugs.
Seizure of train passenger’s suitcase did not occur when agent first telephoned to secure a narcotics dog to check the suitcase, or when agent lifted suitcase, but when he informed passenger he was detaining her suitcase in order to expose it to a trained narcotics dog, this seizure required reasonable suspicion.
Q) United States v Robinson (984 F. 2d 911 (1993) Eighth Circuit
Defendant at train station was asked to consent to a search of his luggage. The defendant denied consent. Officer’s statement to the defendant that he would have a drug sniffing dog sniff the luggage and that would take 30 to 40 minutes to arrive, did not coerce defendant into consenting to search his luggage. The defendant was not subjected to possible disruption of his travel plans since his travel plans required him to wait in the terminal for over an hour.
R) United States v Carter (985 F. 2d 1095 (1993) District of Columbia Circuit
Officers had reasonable suspicion to detain suspect’s bag at the train station for a canine sniff. Upon taking the bag to the dog, the suspect admitted to officers that the bag did in fact contain narcotics. The suspect was placed under arrest. The dog had a positive alert to the bag and the bag was searched incident to the arrest.
S) United States v Wynne (993 F. 2d 760 (1993) Tenth Circuit
During the time officers question a person on a train to develop reasonable suspicion, no Miranda warnings are required.
Officers asked defendant in the coach car of a train permission to conduct a dog sniff of his luggage. The defendant consented. The dog sniffed and gave a positive alert to a box. The officers asked for consent to open the box and the defendant refused.
The officers seized the box and left the defendant on the train. A search warrant was obtained based upon the positive canine alert.
T) United States v McCarthur (6 F. 3d 1270 (1993) Seventh Circuit
Officer’s seizure of defendant required reasonable suspicion. Officer’s decision to detain defendant’s carry-on bag for a canine sniff was justified, where dog would quickly confirm or deny the suspicion the bag contained narcotics.
The defendant was told the bag would be detained for 15 minutes for a canine sniff, she was told that she could leave and she was told she did not have to consent to a search.
U) United States v Houston (21 F. 3d 1035 (1994) Tenth Circuit
Officers may seize and detain train passenger’s luggage and subject it to a dog sniff, if they have reasonable suspicion.
These factors provided reasonable suspicion:
• passenger lied about traveling alone;
• passenger lied about his phone number;
• passenger lied about not having identification;
• travel reservation had been made the previous day.
The dog alerted to the luggage and a search warrant was obtained.
V) United States v Moore (22 F. 3d 241 (1994) Tenth Circuit
Agents had reasonable suspicion to detain train passenger’s luggage for a canine sniff.
The bag was seized and the passenger was free to leave. No narcotic detector dog was available at the train station. The bag was driven 5 minutes to where the dog was. The dog alerted and a search warrant was obtained.
(It should be noted that the dog was unavailable due to working a security detail for the Vice President of the United States.)
W) United States v Garcia (42 F. 3d 604 (1994) Tenth Circuit
Dog sniff of luggage in train’s baggage car without reasonable suspicion but with authorization of operator of train did not violate the Fourth Amendment. The owner of the luggage had no expectation of privacy of the air space surrounding the luggage.
X) United States v Torres (65 F. 3d 1241 (1995) Fourth Circuit
Consensual encounter turned into an investigative detention when train passenger refused consent search of carry-on luggage and officers told her that they were seizing her bag for a canine sniff.
An investigative detention must be supported by reasonable and articulable suspicion.
Drug courier profile, without more, does not create reasonable suspicion.