Yesteryear
Expert Expediter
VEHICLE CASE LAW
Vehicle Searches
A canine sniff of the exterior of a vehicle is not a search. The vehicle must be lawfully detained, such as a traffic stop, roadblock, etc.
If the vehicle is parked in a public place, random and suspicionless dog sniffs of the exterior is not a search.
An investigative stop and/or detention of a vehicle for an exterior canine sniff, must be supported by reasonable suspicion or consent. Drug courier profile, without more, does not create reasonable suspicion. Failure to consent to search cannot form any part of basis for reasonable suspicion.
If you tell a person that a canine unit or drug dog is being requested, the person is detained. Consent may not be requested.
Once the canine sniff produces a positive alert, this alert establishes probable cause.
Under the automobile exception to the search warrant requirement, all parts of the vehicle may be searched without a warrant.
The dog may be used for the interior search (after the positive canine alert on the exterior).
You may impound and tow the vehicle to a different location and continue the warrantless search of the vehicle there.
If, after a positive canine alert on the exterior of the vehicle, no contraband is located in the vehicle, you may conduct a “search incident to arrest” search of the occupants.
1) Detentions of vehicles while awaiting a K-9 sniff:
A) Ask for consent.
B) United States v Hardy (855 F. 2d 753 (1988) Eleventh Circuit
Discrepancies from the suspect(s) can be part of your reasonable suspicion. Do not confront the suspect(s) with their discrepancies. This allows them to change their story and once discrepancies are corrected, you may lose your reasonable suspicion.
C) United States v Dewitt (946 F. 2d 1497 (1991) Tenth Circuit
If consent is refused, you must have reasonable suspicion of unlawful activity to detain. The reasonable suspicion factors must establish the reasons for the detention. You must be able to articulate each observation that is a potential indicator of drug trafficking or use.
2) United States v Spetz (721 F. 2d 1457 (1983) Ninth Circuit
Detector dogs’ alert on a parked vehicle in a public place was reasonable suspicion of the presence of illegal drugs and was sufficient to justify a further dog sniff.
A dog sniff can supply probable cause necessary for issuing a search warrant only if sufficient reliability is established by application for the warrant.
Portion of search warrant affidavit stating that detector dog had alerted to a vehicle established probable cause to search the vehicle.
3) United States v Montoya de Hernandez (473 U. S. 531 (1985) U. S. Supreme Court
Consistent with Congress’ power to protect the nation by stopping and examining persons entering this country, the Fourth Amendment’s balance of reasonableness is qualitatively different at the international border than in the interior. Routine searches of persons and effects of entrants are not subject to any requirement of reasonable suspicion, probable cause or warrant.
Automotive travelers may be stopped at fixed checkpoints near the border without individualized suspicion, even if the stop is based largely on ethnicity, and boats on inland waters with ready access to the sea may be hailed and boarded with no suspicion whatsoever.
Expectation of privacy at an international border is less than in the interior.
4) United States v Dicesare (765 F. 2d 890 (1985) Ninth Circuit
Canine sniff of automobile trunk was not a search. Alerting to a suitcase in the trunk provided probable cause to search the defendant’s car and her apartment.
5) United States v Hamilton (792 F. 2d 837 (1986) Ninth Circuit
Agents’ search of a motor home parked in homeowner’s driveway fell within scope of vehicle exception to warrant requirement, where the motor home was moved the night before and had easy access to a public road, even when the motor home was connected to electrical utilities by means of an extension cord.
6) United States v Quinn (815 F. 2d 153 (1987) First Circuit
While officers were securing a house for a search warrant, suspects drove up to the house in a car. Officers developed reasonable suspicion that the defendants were about to commit or had committed a crime.
Based upon the reasonable suspicion, a canine sniff was done on the vehicle. The dog alerted to the trunk, which gave officers probable cause to search the vehicle.
7) United States v Rivera (825 F. 2d 152 (1987) Seventh Circuit
The automobile exception to the Fourth Amendment allows a warrantless search and seizure of a car as long as the search is justified by probable cause, even if the car is parked and stationary.
Law enforcement agent’s delays in the search of the car by removing it to a garage and sniff tested by narcotic detection dog and until another sniff test was conducted, were reasonable.
8) United States v Hardy (855 F. 2d 753 (1988) Eleventh Circuit
Trooper had reasonable suspicion justifying investigative stop of defendant’s automobile after he had given the driver warning for speeding.
Subjecting luggage in defendant’s automobile to a canine sniff did not exceed permissible scope of Terry stop. The sniff was an un-intrusive way in which to determine whether narcotics were in the luggage in the trunk.
Trooper acted with dispatch in obtaining trained dog and 50-minute delay did not invalidate the detention, particularly due to the trooper’s avoiding any questioning of the defendant’s during the waiting period.
9) United States v Stone (866 F. 2d 359 (1989) Tenth Circuit
Police use of a narcotics dog to sniff an automobile is not a search.
A warrantless search of narcotics suspect’s car was justified when a trained dog indicated existence of narcotics after jumping into car’s open hatchback and hatchback was not opened to permit dog to enter and dog was not encouraged to enter the car.
The defendant himself opened his vehicle and provided an opportunity for the dog to jump through the opening.
10) United States v De Soto (885 F. 2d 354 (1989) Seventh Circuit
Probable cause was established when a narcotics-sniffing dog reacted positively to presence of drugs in the rear of an automobile that arrived at defendant’s building.
11) United States v Dovali-Avila (895 F. 2d 206 (1990) Fifth Circuit
Mere alerting of a dog trained to alert on contraband or mere walking of the dog around a vehicle does not constitute a search.
Officers have probable cause to search a vehicle upon which a trained dog alerted to the presence of contraband in the bed of a truck.
12) United States v Maejia (928 F. 2d 810 (1991) Eighth Circuit
Otherwise valid traffic stop does not become unreasonable merely because officer believes the car is involved in transportation of drugs.
Once a trained police dog sniffed a vehicle for narcotics and gave a positive canine alert, that established probable cause to search the vehicle.
13) United States v Fiala (929 F. 2d 285 (1991) Seventh Circuit
One and one-half hour roadside detention of driver while troopers awaited arrival of drug sniffing dog was reasonable, where driver would have been detained anyway in county jail as a result of his arrest for driving without a valid license.
14) United States v Rodriguez-Morales (929 F. 2d 780 (1991) First Circuit
Canine sniff of the exterior of a vehicle, which is legitimately within the custody of police, is not a search.
Once the vehicle had legitimately been impounded pursuant to officers’ community care taking function, sniffing of the exterior of the vehicle by a drug detection dog was not a search.
15) United States v Taylor (934 F. 2d 218 (1991) Ninth Circuit
Border patrol agent’s observation that motorist became increasingly nervous and uneasy at end of initial check for illegal aliens constituted minimal, articulable suspicion necessary to justify brief further delay for dog sniff.
16) United States v Moralez (964 F. 2d 677 (1992) Seventh Circuit
Defendant voluntarily consented to search of automobile where defendant verbally consented three times and the officer told the defendant that a police dog would be used to assist searching the vehicle. The dog alerted to one spare tire and the defendant verbally consented to removing the tire from the rim.
17) United States v Morales-Zamora (974 F. 2d 149 (1992) Tenth Circuit
A “pretextual stop” occurs if police use legal justification to make stop when true purpose of stop is to search person or vehicle for unrelated and more serious crime for which police lack reasonable suspicion necessary to support stop.
Evidence in this case showed that primary reason for roadblock stop of defendant’s vehicle was not to check her driver’s license, but to ascertain, with the aid of narcotics detection dog, whether defendant possessed drugs, and thus, stop was pretextual and all that occurred after stop was tainted.
A roadblock set up for sole purpose of subjecting all stopped vehicles to a canine sniff violated Fourth Amendment.
(See City of Indianapolis v Edmond)
18) United States v Barbee (968 F. 2d 1026 (1992) Tenth Circuit
Dog sniff of vehicle for narcotics was not a search where vehicle was already lawfully seized.
Based upon the canine alert, once this gave agents probable cause to search luggage carried in vehicle, no warrant was necessary under the automobile exception.
Automobile exception allowed warrantless search of all containers in automobile.
19) United States v Hernandez (976 F. 2d 929 (1992) Fifth Circuit
Canine sniff of exterior of car referred by border patrol agent in secondary inspection area is not a search.
Agent had probable cause to search vehicle for narcotics when the vehicle had been properly stopped and a dog performing sniff test had alerted to the presence of drugs.
20) United States v Seals (987 F. 2d 1102 (1993) Fifth Circuit
Dog sniff is not a search. Officers do not need reasonable suspicion to conduct an exterior vehicle sniff.
Initial alert by dog during dog sniff, when a dog jumped up on driver’s side window, which officer interpreted as an alert on the interior of the vehicle, gave officers probable cause to search the passenger compartment.
When dog alerted to a box in the trunk, probable cause extended to the entire vehicle and all containers therein.
21) United States v Hatley (15 F. 3d 856 (1994) Ninth Circuit
The automobile exception to the warrant requirement applies to search of inoperable car parked on defendant’s property, where car was parked in driveway and was apparently mobile.
Officers are not required to ascertain functional capacity of vehicle in order to satisfy exigency requirement of vehicle exception to warrant requirement.
22) United States v Chavira (9 F. 3d 888 (1993) Tenth Circuit
Although consent or reasonable suspicion is not required for dog-sniff of legally detained vehicle, it is required for continued detention beyond lawful period.
Defendant’s consent to dog sniff of vehicle amounted to consent to resulting brief detention.
When dog alerts to vehicle, officers have probable cause to search it.
23) United States v Ludwig (10 F. 3d 1523 (1993) Tenth Circuit
Police officer’s entry of motel parking lot with dog for a canine sniff of vehicles parked in the lot was not a search.
Random and suspicionless dog sniffs of vehicles in motel parking lot was not a search.
Dog alert gave agents’ probable cause to search trunk of automobile.
Under the automobile exception to warrant requirement, if police have probable cause to search a car, no warrant is required even when police have time and opportunity.
24) United States v Jeffus (22 F. 3d 554 (1994) Fourth Circuit
Regardless of motive behind vehicle stop, the defendant’s vehicle failed to have proper safety devices and was justifiably stopped.
A dog sniff of the exterior of the vehicle during this stop was not a search. When the dog alerted to the car, the officer had probable cause to search.
The 15 minute period prior to the K-9 sniff during the traffic stop was reasonable.
25) United States v Sukiz-Grado (22 F. 3d 1006 (1994) Tenth Circuit
Dog’s alert behavior while sniffing vehicle’s exterior provided probable cause to believe the vehicle contained contraband and justified dog search of vehicle’s interior.
Vehicle Searches
A canine sniff of the exterior of a vehicle is not a search. The vehicle must be lawfully detained, such as a traffic stop, roadblock, etc.
If the vehicle is parked in a public place, random and suspicionless dog sniffs of the exterior is not a search.
An investigative stop and/or detention of a vehicle for an exterior canine sniff, must be supported by reasonable suspicion or consent. Drug courier profile, without more, does not create reasonable suspicion. Failure to consent to search cannot form any part of basis for reasonable suspicion.
If you tell a person that a canine unit or drug dog is being requested, the person is detained. Consent may not be requested.
Once the canine sniff produces a positive alert, this alert establishes probable cause.
Under the automobile exception to the search warrant requirement, all parts of the vehicle may be searched without a warrant.
The dog may be used for the interior search (after the positive canine alert on the exterior).
You may impound and tow the vehicle to a different location and continue the warrantless search of the vehicle there.
If, after a positive canine alert on the exterior of the vehicle, no contraband is located in the vehicle, you may conduct a “search incident to arrest” search of the occupants.
1) Detentions of vehicles while awaiting a K-9 sniff:
A) Ask for consent.
B) United States v Hardy (855 F. 2d 753 (1988) Eleventh Circuit
Discrepancies from the suspect(s) can be part of your reasonable suspicion. Do not confront the suspect(s) with their discrepancies. This allows them to change their story and once discrepancies are corrected, you may lose your reasonable suspicion.
C) United States v Dewitt (946 F. 2d 1497 (1991) Tenth Circuit
If consent is refused, you must have reasonable suspicion of unlawful activity to detain. The reasonable suspicion factors must establish the reasons for the detention. You must be able to articulate each observation that is a potential indicator of drug trafficking or use.
2) United States v Spetz (721 F. 2d 1457 (1983) Ninth Circuit
Detector dogs’ alert on a parked vehicle in a public place was reasonable suspicion of the presence of illegal drugs and was sufficient to justify a further dog sniff.
A dog sniff can supply probable cause necessary for issuing a search warrant only if sufficient reliability is established by application for the warrant.
Portion of search warrant affidavit stating that detector dog had alerted to a vehicle established probable cause to search the vehicle.
3) United States v Montoya de Hernandez (473 U. S. 531 (1985) U. S. Supreme Court
Consistent with Congress’ power to protect the nation by stopping and examining persons entering this country, the Fourth Amendment’s balance of reasonableness is qualitatively different at the international border than in the interior. Routine searches of persons and effects of entrants are not subject to any requirement of reasonable suspicion, probable cause or warrant.
Automotive travelers may be stopped at fixed checkpoints near the border without individualized suspicion, even if the stop is based largely on ethnicity, and boats on inland waters with ready access to the sea may be hailed and boarded with no suspicion whatsoever.
Expectation of privacy at an international border is less than in the interior.
4) United States v Dicesare (765 F. 2d 890 (1985) Ninth Circuit
Canine sniff of automobile trunk was not a search. Alerting to a suitcase in the trunk provided probable cause to search the defendant’s car and her apartment.
5) United States v Hamilton (792 F. 2d 837 (1986) Ninth Circuit
Agents’ search of a motor home parked in homeowner’s driveway fell within scope of vehicle exception to warrant requirement, where the motor home was moved the night before and had easy access to a public road, even when the motor home was connected to electrical utilities by means of an extension cord.
6) United States v Quinn (815 F. 2d 153 (1987) First Circuit
While officers were securing a house for a search warrant, suspects drove up to the house in a car. Officers developed reasonable suspicion that the defendants were about to commit or had committed a crime.
Based upon the reasonable suspicion, a canine sniff was done on the vehicle. The dog alerted to the trunk, which gave officers probable cause to search the vehicle.
7) United States v Rivera (825 F. 2d 152 (1987) Seventh Circuit
The automobile exception to the Fourth Amendment allows a warrantless search and seizure of a car as long as the search is justified by probable cause, even if the car is parked and stationary.
Law enforcement agent’s delays in the search of the car by removing it to a garage and sniff tested by narcotic detection dog and until another sniff test was conducted, were reasonable.
8) United States v Hardy (855 F. 2d 753 (1988) Eleventh Circuit
Trooper had reasonable suspicion justifying investigative stop of defendant’s automobile after he had given the driver warning for speeding.
Subjecting luggage in defendant’s automobile to a canine sniff did not exceed permissible scope of Terry stop. The sniff was an un-intrusive way in which to determine whether narcotics were in the luggage in the trunk.
Trooper acted with dispatch in obtaining trained dog and 50-minute delay did not invalidate the detention, particularly due to the trooper’s avoiding any questioning of the defendant’s during the waiting period.
9) United States v Stone (866 F. 2d 359 (1989) Tenth Circuit
Police use of a narcotics dog to sniff an automobile is not a search.
A warrantless search of narcotics suspect’s car was justified when a trained dog indicated existence of narcotics after jumping into car’s open hatchback and hatchback was not opened to permit dog to enter and dog was not encouraged to enter the car.
The defendant himself opened his vehicle and provided an opportunity for the dog to jump through the opening.
10) United States v De Soto (885 F. 2d 354 (1989) Seventh Circuit
Probable cause was established when a narcotics-sniffing dog reacted positively to presence of drugs in the rear of an automobile that arrived at defendant’s building.
11) United States v Dovali-Avila (895 F. 2d 206 (1990) Fifth Circuit
Mere alerting of a dog trained to alert on contraband or mere walking of the dog around a vehicle does not constitute a search.
Officers have probable cause to search a vehicle upon which a trained dog alerted to the presence of contraband in the bed of a truck.
12) United States v Maejia (928 F. 2d 810 (1991) Eighth Circuit
Otherwise valid traffic stop does not become unreasonable merely because officer believes the car is involved in transportation of drugs.
Once a trained police dog sniffed a vehicle for narcotics and gave a positive canine alert, that established probable cause to search the vehicle.
13) United States v Fiala (929 F. 2d 285 (1991) Seventh Circuit
One and one-half hour roadside detention of driver while troopers awaited arrival of drug sniffing dog was reasonable, where driver would have been detained anyway in county jail as a result of his arrest for driving without a valid license.
14) United States v Rodriguez-Morales (929 F. 2d 780 (1991) First Circuit
Canine sniff of the exterior of a vehicle, which is legitimately within the custody of police, is not a search.
Once the vehicle had legitimately been impounded pursuant to officers’ community care taking function, sniffing of the exterior of the vehicle by a drug detection dog was not a search.
15) United States v Taylor (934 F. 2d 218 (1991) Ninth Circuit
Border patrol agent’s observation that motorist became increasingly nervous and uneasy at end of initial check for illegal aliens constituted minimal, articulable suspicion necessary to justify brief further delay for dog sniff.
16) United States v Moralez (964 F. 2d 677 (1992) Seventh Circuit
Defendant voluntarily consented to search of automobile where defendant verbally consented three times and the officer told the defendant that a police dog would be used to assist searching the vehicle. The dog alerted to one spare tire and the defendant verbally consented to removing the tire from the rim.
17) United States v Morales-Zamora (974 F. 2d 149 (1992) Tenth Circuit
A “pretextual stop” occurs if police use legal justification to make stop when true purpose of stop is to search person or vehicle for unrelated and more serious crime for which police lack reasonable suspicion necessary to support stop.
Evidence in this case showed that primary reason for roadblock stop of defendant’s vehicle was not to check her driver’s license, but to ascertain, with the aid of narcotics detection dog, whether defendant possessed drugs, and thus, stop was pretextual and all that occurred after stop was tainted.
A roadblock set up for sole purpose of subjecting all stopped vehicles to a canine sniff violated Fourth Amendment.
(See City of Indianapolis v Edmond)
18) United States v Barbee (968 F. 2d 1026 (1992) Tenth Circuit
Dog sniff of vehicle for narcotics was not a search where vehicle was already lawfully seized.
Based upon the canine alert, once this gave agents probable cause to search luggage carried in vehicle, no warrant was necessary under the automobile exception.
Automobile exception allowed warrantless search of all containers in automobile.
19) United States v Hernandez (976 F. 2d 929 (1992) Fifth Circuit
Canine sniff of exterior of car referred by border patrol agent in secondary inspection area is not a search.
Agent had probable cause to search vehicle for narcotics when the vehicle had been properly stopped and a dog performing sniff test had alerted to the presence of drugs.
20) United States v Seals (987 F. 2d 1102 (1993) Fifth Circuit
Dog sniff is not a search. Officers do not need reasonable suspicion to conduct an exterior vehicle sniff.
Initial alert by dog during dog sniff, when a dog jumped up on driver’s side window, which officer interpreted as an alert on the interior of the vehicle, gave officers probable cause to search the passenger compartment.
When dog alerted to a box in the trunk, probable cause extended to the entire vehicle and all containers therein.
21) United States v Hatley (15 F. 3d 856 (1994) Ninth Circuit
The automobile exception to the warrant requirement applies to search of inoperable car parked on defendant’s property, where car was parked in driveway and was apparently mobile.
Officers are not required to ascertain functional capacity of vehicle in order to satisfy exigency requirement of vehicle exception to warrant requirement.
22) United States v Chavira (9 F. 3d 888 (1993) Tenth Circuit
Although consent or reasonable suspicion is not required for dog-sniff of legally detained vehicle, it is required for continued detention beyond lawful period.
Defendant’s consent to dog sniff of vehicle amounted to consent to resulting brief detention.
When dog alerts to vehicle, officers have probable cause to search it.
23) United States v Ludwig (10 F. 3d 1523 (1993) Tenth Circuit
Police officer’s entry of motel parking lot with dog for a canine sniff of vehicles parked in the lot was not a search.
Random and suspicionless dog sniffs of vehicles in motel parking lot was not a search.
Dog alert gave agents’ probable cause to search trunk of automobile.
Under the automobile exception to warrant requirement, if police have probable cause to search a car, no warrant is required even when police have time and opportunity.
24) United States v Jeffus (22 F. 3d 554 (1994) Fourth Circuit
Regardless of motive behind vehicle stop, the defendant’s vehicle failed to have proper safety devices and was justifiably stopped.
A dog sniff of the exterior of the vehicle during this stop was not a search. When the dog alerted to the car, the officer had probable cause to search.
The 15 minute period prior to the K-9 sniff during the traffic stop was reasonable.
25) United States v Sukiz-Grado (22 F. 3d 1006 (1994) Tenth Circuit
Dog’s alert behavior while sniffing vehicle’s exterior provided probable cause to believe the vehicle contained contraband and justified dog search of vehicle’s interior.
Last edited:
