The government is trying to overturn a court victory against drug dogs by taking it all the way to the United States Supreme Court. Florida's Attorney General filed a petition for writ of certiorari in the case of Florida v. Gary Alan Matheson.

A lower court had held that police dogs used to sniff out illicit narcotics must be properly trained and evaluated, with thorough records kept, before their responses may be deemed reliable in court as the basis for searching people or their vehicles.

"Local law enforcement sometimes does not do enough to ensure that drug-detecting dogs are conditioned to 'alert' to contraband alone, as opposed to some other odor triggers" said Attorney Rex Curry, the attorney who started the case with a motion to suppress evidence. The ruling laid down a set of guidelines that police departments should follow if they want to use evidence obtained through the use of dogs.

"Law enforcement uses drug-detecting dogs as a way to circumvent the Constitution's requirement that a judge issue a warrant, and the police don't want their dogs scrutinized too closely" said Attorney Curry "and there is the added concern that some police use the dogs for improper searches by claiming that the dogs alert even when the dogs don't alert. Some police do that to punish drivers who exercise their Fourth Amendment rights and refuse to consent to search upon request. It is a police-state tactic."

On the street, drug-sniffing dogs are often used when a driver, pulled over for a traffic infraction, refuses to give police consent for his vehicle to be searched. The deputy or officer handling the dog will direct it around the perimeter of the car. If the dog alerts to the presence of narcotics, police are deemed to have probable cause and may conduct a legal search of the car's interior.

"Why should a driver pulled over for speeding be subject to an intrusive search? If police have no cause to believe the driver is a drug runner, why should dogs be used at all?" asked Curry, "In truth, they shouldn't be, but the U.S. Supreme Court has said the use of drug-sniffing dogs doesn't constitute a search under the Fourth Amendment, and that means police may use them with impunity."

In the Matheson case, a drug-detecting dog named Razor was used in May 1999 to smell a car driven by Matheson. He had been stopped for a traffic infraction. He had denied consent to search when asked. A wait occurred for a drug dog to arrive and after the dog alerted to the presence of drugs, the car was searched and illegal drugs were found. The lower court refused to suppress the evidence, and Matheson pleaded no contest and appealed.

In reversing the conviction, an appeals court found that Razor's alert was not reliable, due to the poor training and record-keeping done by the Sheriff's Office. Among many deficiencies, Razor's success and failure rate was not documented, he had not been given training to ignore residual odors of contraband, and the dog had not been subject to controlled negative testing (where the dog is asked to search when drugs are known not to be present) .

"Rather than being appealed by Florida to the Supreme Court, the ruling should be a model for the nation," said Curry.

Police officers said "If you don't consent to search, we'll kill this dog!" http://rexcurry.net/dog4.jpg


For the Supreme Court docket information see  http://www.supremecourtus.gov/docket/04-1668.htm  
For more information on drug dogs see http://rexcurry.net/drugdogsmain.html