Wis. Supreme Court: Police dog sniffs not a search
MADISON, Wis. (AP) - The Wisconsin Supreme Court says sniffs by police dogs don't amount to searches.
The ruling comes in response to a 2005 case from north-central Wisconsin. A Colby-Abbotsford police officer pulled over a car in which Ramon Arias was a passenger.
The officer let his dog sniff around the car. The officer then searched the car and found a switchblade and a bag of what appeared to be cocaine.
Arias argued the dog sniff amounted to a search.
But Justice Patience Drake Roggensack wrote the U.S. Supreme Court has determined a dog sniff of a vehicle's exterior doesn't qualify as a search.
Arias' attorney didn't immediately return a message.
Copyright 2008 by The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved.
Jul 10, 2008 at 3:50 p.m.
Suggest removal
I'm sorry. I didn't know that I needed a Law Degree to be able to read and and understand The Constitution. But I am sure that what they meant by unreasonable search meant a search that was unreasonable.
Jul 10, 2008 at 8:02 a.m.
Suggest removal
Imagine someone taking a perfume atomizer filled with THC to the next concert in Alpine Valley and spritzing a few dozen car doors in the parking lot, or just paying a visit to the Janesville Mall parking lot on a Saturday afternoon. Hmmm... imagine someone tagging police and sheriff cars that way.
Jul 10, 2008 at 1:50 a.m.
Suggest removal
The Constitution of the United States protects from unreasonable searches. Did the police officer have reason to believe that there may have been drugs in the car prior to the smell test? If not then that is unreasonable.
Jul 10, 2008 at 12:53 a.m.
Suggest removal
the point missed is this. what will they make you hide next? will they sniff around outside your house for a hand gun? a shotgun? maybe a playboy magizine. we are losing more and more of our rights and our PERSUIT OF HAPPINESS. the man WILL be at your door some time.
Jul 10, 2008 at 12:31 a.m.
Suggest removal
petcat, Obviously you have very little knowledge of police dogs. These unique animals receive as much if not more initial training then Police Officers and are required to complete training on a weekly or bi-weekly basis. Police dogs DO NOT receive cues from their handlers during narcotic searches, they only react to known scents they were familiarized with during training. If your theory is correct, that police canines only respond to cues from their handler, then how did the officer know there would be cocaine in the car? Perhaps you should do a little more research on the topics you comment on before posting or are you just anti police?
Jul 9, 2008 at 8:48 p.m.
Suggest removal
I agree biff - nothing to hide, nothing to fear. Sniff at will.
Jul 9, 2008 at 8:28 p.m.
Suggest removal
biffkig, We'll be over to search your house tomorrow. If you have nothing to hide you don't have a problem with it......right??
Jul 9, 2008 at 7:30 p.m.
Suggest removal
If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear!
Jul 9, 2008 at 6:59 p.m.
Suggest removal
if letting a dog sniff around a vehicle--obviously with the motivation to find something--then bill clinton did not have sex with THAT woman!!! a very terrible ruling. the next step will be police with dogs on every corner and you are sniffed but not searched. bad, bad, bad!!!
Jul 9, 2008 at 3:46 p.m.
Suggest removal
go dog he should have bit him in the butt while sniffing around the out side of the car. give the dog a big bone to chew on for his good effert.
Before you post a comment, consider this:
Note: GazetteXtra.com does not condone or review every comment. Read more in our User Policy AgreementPost Comment
Commenting requires registration.