Canine Sniff

71 Florida cases classified under this topic · sorted by citation count · see the citation graph · browse and sort

• United States v. Thomas
  757 F.2d 1359· 2d Cir.· 1985-03-11 ·cited 104×
• United States v. Whitehead
  849 F.2d 849· 4th Cir.· 1988-05-24 ·cited 78×
  A passenger train sleeping compartment is analogous to a hotel room for Fourth Amendment purposes, and a search without probable cause and a warrant violates a passenger's legitimate expectation of privacy.
• United States v. Bronstein
  521 F.2d 459· 2d Cir.· 1975-08-08 ·cited 71×
  The court held that the use of a marijuana-sniffing dog to search a private bag constitutes a search under the Fourth Amendment, but that the reduced expectation of privacy in checked baggage, combined with reasonable suspicion, can justify such a warrantless search.
• State v. Rabb
  920 So. 2d 1175· Fla. 4th DCA· 2006-02-15 ·cited 65×
  Florida appealed a trial court's suppression of evidence obtained from James Rabb's home, challenging the finding that a drug-detection dog's sniff at the exterior of the house constituted an unconstitutional search. The Fourth District affirmed the suppression, holding that dog
• United States v. Ayarza
  874 F.2d 647· 9th Cir.· 1989-05-09 ·cited 59×
  The court held that the totality of the circumstances, including drug courier profile factors, provided reasonable suspicion to detain the appellant's luggage for a canine sniff, and that the Sentencing Reform Act provisions requiring a government motion for downward adjustment a
• United States v. Gaetano Phillip Puglisi
  723 F.2d 779· 11th Cir.· 1984-01-23 ·cited 59×
• United States v. Dario Dicesare
  765 F.2d 890· 9th Cir.· 1985-07-10 ·cited 57×
  The court held that the use of a trained canine to sniff the interior of a private residence constitutes a search under the Fourth Amendment.
• United States v. Klein
  626 F.2d 22· 7th Cir.· 1980-06-16 ·cited 57×
  The court held that the initial stop of the defendants was justified under Terry v. Ohio, and the subsequent detention of their luggage based on reasonable suspicion, followed by a canine sniff and a search warrant, did not violate the Fourth Amendment.
• United States v. Hardy
  855 F.2d 753· 11th Cir.· 1988-09-19 ·cited 48×
  An officer's subjective motive for making a traffic stop is irrelevant if the stop is objectively legal and authorized by law.
• United States v. Waltzer
  682 F.2d 370· 2d Cir.· 1982-06-25 ·cited 42×
• United States v. Colyer
  878 F.2d 469· D.C. Cir.· 1989-06-27 ·cited 38×
  A canine sniff of an Amtrak sleeper compartment from a public corridor is not a search under the Fourth Amendment because it is minimally intrusive and only reveals the presence of contraband.
• Joelis Jardines v. State
  73 So. 3d 34· Fla.· 2011-04-14 ·cited 34×
  The Florida Supreme Court held that a warrantless dog sniff at the front door of a private residence constitutes a search under the Fourth Amendment requiring probable cause, not reasonable suspicion. The court reversed the district court's decision and affirmed the trial court's
• United States v. Bennie Ree White
  890 F.2d 1413· 8th Cir.· 1989-11-14 ·cited 32×
  The court held that experienced officers had reasonable, articulable suspicion to detain the defendant based on a totality of the circumstances, and that a subsequent search warrant was validly issued.
• United States v. Beale
  736 F.2d 1289· 9th Cir.· 1984-07-02 ·cited 30×
  A canine sniff of luggage by a trained narcotics detection dog does not constitute a "search" within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment.
• State v. Mosier
  392 So. 2d 602· Fla. 3d DCA· 1981-01-20 ·cited 29×
  The State appeals a trial court suppression order of cocaine found during an airport investigation; the appellate court remands for further evidentiary hearing, finding the legality of the initial encounter and detectives' presence in the baggage area irrelevant to the seizure's
• State v. Joelis Jardines
  9 So. 3d 1· Fla. 3d DCA· 2008-10-22 ·cited 26×
  The State appeals the suppression of marijuana plants and related evidence seized from Jardines' home pursuant to a search warrant. The Florida Third District Court of Appeal reverses, holding that a canine sniff is not a Fourth Amendment search, the officer was lawfully present
• United States v. Aureliano Galindo Vasquez
  909 F.2d 235· 7th Cir.· 1990-08-01 ·cited 26×
  The court held that a canine sniff of a garage from a public alley is not a Fourth Amendment search, and the presence of firearms in a drug-trafficking offense can constitute 'use' under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) if they provide security and confidence. The court also affirmed the distr
• United States v. Lyons
  898 F.2d 210· 1st Cir.· 1990-03-13 ·cited 25×
  The court held that inserting a key into a storage unit padlock to identify ownership is not an unreasonable search under the Fourth Amendment, and that a trial stipulation does not require the same procedural safeguards as a guilty plea under Rule 11.
• United States v. Adela Morales-Zamora
  914 F.2d 200· 10th Cir.· 1990-09-06 ·cited 22×
  A canine sniff of a vehicle lawfully detained at a roadblock is not a "search" under the Fourth Amendment, and thus does not require reasonable suspicion of drug-related criminal activity.
• Daniels v. Cochran
  654 So. 2d 609· Fla. 4th DCA· 1995-05-03 ·cited 20×
  This case addresses whether currency seized from a Federal Express package without a warrant violates the Fourth Amendment, even when the package was opened based on a drug-sniffing dog's alert. The court reversed a default order of civil forfeiture and held that the warrantless
• United States v. Alpert
  816 F.2d 958· 4th Cir.· 1987-04-21 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the 50-minute detention of the suspect's briefcase for a canine sniff was reasonable under the Fourth Amendment, as the officers acted diligently and the suspect contributed to the delay.
• Cavalluzzi v. State
  409 So. 2d 1108· Fla. 3d DCA· 1982-02-02 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the defendant's encounter with police did not constitute a stop, and the subsequent observation and dog sniff of his suitcase were lawful, providing probable cause for a search.
• State v. Pereira
  967 So. 2d 312· Fla. 3d DCA· 2007-09-26 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the odor of marijuana detected from the sidewalk and front porch, along with a trained dog's alert, provided sufficient probable cause for a search warrant, even if the dog sniff itself was considered an illegal search.
• State v. Bankston
  435 So. 2d 269· Fla. 3d DCA· 1983-06-07 ·cited 15×
  The Florida Supreme Court's decision in Florida v. Royer established that law enforcement could conduct brief investigative detentions at airports based on reasonable suspicion, including dog-sniff searches of luggage. This case applies that precedent to reverse a suppression ord
• United States v. Nurse
  916 F.2d 20· D.C. Cir.· 1990-10-19 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the police had reasonable suspicion to detain the appellant and her luggage for a canine sniff, and that the subsequent detention and search were constitutional.
• United States v. Braddy
  11 F.4th 1298· 11th Cir.· 2021-08-31 ·cited 13×
  James Bernard Braddy appealed his conviction for drug possession charges, challenging the legality of a traffic stop, its prolongation, and the subsequent search of his vehicle based on drug detection dog alerts. The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of Braddy
• Houston Whitfield v. State
  33 So. 3d 787· Fla. 5th DCA· 2010-04-23 ·cited 13×
  Whitfield appealed his cocaine trafficking conviction, arguing that evidence should have been suppressed because it was discovered during an unlawfully prolonged traffic stop. The Florida Fifth District Court of Appeal agreed, holding that a traffic stop cannot be extended beyond
• United States v. Stone
  866 F.2d 359· 10th Cir.· 1989-01-25 ·cited 13×
  The court held that the stop of the defendant's vehicle was justified by reasonable suspicion, and the subsequent search, including the dog's entry into the hatchback, was permissible under the Fourth Amendment, leading to the lawful seizure of narcotics.
• Horton v. Goose Creek Indep. Sch. Dist.
  677 F.2d 471· 5th Cir.· 1982-06-01 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the sniffing of students by drug-detecting dogs is an unconstitutional search under the Fourth Amendment, but the sniffing of cars and lockers is permissible under the special circumstances of the school environment when conducted with reasonable suspicion.
• United States v. Lingenfelter
  997 F.2d 632· 9th Cir.· 1993-06-30 ·cited 10×
  The court held that defendants lacked standing to challenge the warehouse search and that the canine sniff was not a search under the Fourth Amendment. It also affirmed the probable cause for the warehouse search warrant and the exigent circumstances justifying the seizure of the
• United States v. Quinton Dandre Scales
  903 F.2d 765· 10th Cir.· 1990-05-14 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the prolonged seizure of the defendant's suitcase for a dog sniff, without probable cause or exigent circumstances, violated the Fourth Amendment, and the good faith exception did not apply to a warrantless seizure.
• State v. Rabb
  881 So. 2d 587· Fla. 4th DCA· 2004-06-23 ·cited 8×
  Florida appeals the trial court's suppression of evidence obtained from a search warrant for James Rabb's house, which was based partly on a drug-detector dog's alert at the residence's exterior. The Fourth District Court of Appeal holds that conducting a dog sniff at the door of
• Castro v. State
  755 So. 2d 657· Fla. 4th DCA· 1999-05-26 ·cited 8×
  Castro appeals the denial of his motion to suppress drugs found in his vehicle following a traffic stop, arguing his consent to search was involuntary due to his inability to understand English and that the use of a police dog exceeded the scope of the consent. The Fourth Distric
• United States v. Ferguson
  935 F.2d 1518· 7th Cir.· 1991-07-08 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the encounter with the defendant was consensual and that there was reasonable suspicion to detain his luggage for a canine sniff, thus the motion to suppress was properly denied. The evidence was also sufficient to support the conviction.
• United States v. Parnell Riley, Jr.
  927 F.2d 1045· 8th Cir.· 1991-03-11 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the detention of a traveler's suitcase for a brief dog sniff, based on reasonable suspicion derived from information relayed between law enforcement agencies, does not violate the Fourth Amendment.
• Sizemore v. State
  390 So. 2d 401· Fla. 3d DCA· 1980-11-04 ·cited 8×
  Sizemore was convicted of drug possession after narcotics officers obtained his consent to allow a trained dog to sniff his briefcase at an airport, which led to probable cause for a search warrant. The court affirmed, holding that his consent to the dog sniff was freely and volu
• United States v. Withers
  972 F.2d 837· 7th Cir.· 1992-08-14 ·cited 7×
  The court held that the initial encounter was consensual, evolving into a lawful investigatory stop based on reasonable suspicion, and that the detention of the bag was reasonable. Discovery and continuance issues were also resolved against the defendant.
• United States v. Taylor
  934 F.2d 218· 9th Cir.· 1991-05-29 ·cited 7×
  The court held that a brief continuation of a lawful Border Patrol checkpoint detention for a canine sniff, based on minimal articulable suspicion of criminal activity, does not violate the Fourth Amendment.
• State v. Bullock
  460 So. 2d 517· Fla. 3d DCA· 1984-12-11 ·cited 7×
  Florida appealed a trial court order suppressing narcotics evidence obtained from defendant Bullock at an Amtrak station. The appellate court reversed, holding that the initial police detention was a reasonable Terry stop based on suspicious circumstances, the dog sniff of luggag
• State v. Tanner
  915 So. 2d 762· Fla. 2d DCA· 2005-12-09 ·cited 6×
  The State appealed the trial court's order suppressing evidence of illegal drugs found in Amanda Tanner's purse during a lawful traffic stop. The appellate court affirmed the suppression, holding that deputies unlawfully seized Tanner's purse without reasonable suspicion, violati
• United States v. Adela Morales-Zamora
  974 F.2d 149· 10th Cir.· 1992-09-03 ·cited 6×
  The court held that a roadblock stop was pretextual and tainted by the primary purpose of drug interdiction, thus violating the Fourth Amendment.
• United States v. Harvey
  961 F.2d 1361· 8th Cir.· 1992-04-16 ·cited 6×
  The dissent argues that removing luggage from an overhead compartment for a canine sniff constitutes an illegal search and seizure under the Fourth Amendment.
• United States v. Trayer
  898 F.2d 805· D.C. Cir.· 1990-03-27 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the officers had probable cause to search the appellant's train roomette based on a narcotics-detecting dog's alert and suspicious travel arrangements.
• United States v. Dovali-Avila
  895 F.2d 206· 5th Cir.· 1990-02-15 ·cited 6×
  A dog's alert at a permanent immigration checkpoint provides sufficient probable cause for a warrantless vehicle search, and a dog sniff itself does not constitute a search.
• United States v. McCRANIE
  703 F.2d 1213· 10th Cir.· 1983-03-25 ·cited 6×
  The dissent argues that the drug courier profile is an unconstitutional basis for seizure and that the conviction should be reversed due to insufficient cause.
• State v. Laron Cartrell Benjamin
  229 So. 3d 442· Fla. 5th DCA· 2017-10-20 ·cited 5×
  Police officers may order the driver of a lawfully stopped vehicle to exit the vehicle without violating the Fourth Amendment, even without a particularized safety concern.
• Darwin Dwayne Davis v. State
  257 So. 3d 1159· Fla. 1st DCA· 2018-10-31 ·cited 4×
  A vehicle parked outside a fenced enclosure surrounding a mobile home and showing no indicia of privacy protection is not within the curtilage of the home, and therefore a warrantless canine sniff conducted during a lawful traffic stop does not violate the Fourth Amendment.
• State v. Raydel B. Rodriguez
  997 So. 2d 1210· Fla. 3d DCA· 2008-12-24 ·cited 4×
  Florida's Third District Court of Appeal reversed the suppression of evidence from a marijuana farm search, holding that a dog sniff does not constitute a Fourth Amendment search under State v. Jardines.
• Lindo v. State
  983 So. 2d 672· Fla. 4th DCA· 2008-06-04 ·cited 4×
  Andre Lindo appeals his conviction for trafficking in marijuana, challenging the denial of his motion to suppress evidence obtained from packages detained at a UPS facility for a dog sniff. The Fourth District Court of Appeal affirmed, holding that the temporary detention of pack
• United States v. Jacobs
  986 F.2d 1231· 8th Cir.· 1993-03-01 ·cited 3×
  The court held that the search warrant affidavit contained a reckless omission of material information, rendering the warrant invalid and requiring suppression of the evidence.