Preview of Member Only Content
For full access: or Become a Member
Police K-9's and the Constitution: What Every Lawyer and Judge Should Know
By Jeff Weiner
Positive K-9 “alerts” are treated as per se probable cause in most states and in the federal courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court, when the
K-9 is assumed to be “trained” and “reliable.”1 The terms “trained,” “reliable,” and “certified” appear repeatedly in judicial opinions handed down over the years relating to dog sniffs. Following United States v. Place,2 the courts, with few exceptions, have demonstrated a lack of understanding of what these concepts actually mean in the real world, and an entrenched disinclination to look beyond the fact that the dog’s handler testified to the occurrence of an alert and that the dog was “trained” and “certified.”3
Judges and justices have been all too eager to blindly accept affidavits from officer/handlers stating that their dog was “trained” or “certified” and that their dog “alerted” to justify a warrantless search or a basis for the issuance of a search warrant. The reality is, much of the “training” is inadequate and t
Want to read more?
The Champion archive is reserved for NACDL members.
NACDL members, please login to read the rest of this article.
Not a member? Join now.
Or click here to see an overview of NACDL Member benefits.
See what NACDL members say about us.
To read the current issue of The Champion in its entirety, click here.
- Media inquiries: Contact NACDL's Director of Public Affairs & Communications Ivan J. Dominguez at 202-465-7662 or firstname.lastname@example.org
- Academic Requests: Full articles of The Champion Magazine are available for academic and research purposes in the WestLaw and LexisNexis databases.