St. John's Law Review

State v. Raab: Dog Sniffs Close to Home

By: Timothy C. Stone

The use of dog sniffs to conduct law enforcement presents unique Fourth Amendment issues for both judicial and scholarly examination.  Although the Supreme Court has held that sniffs are constitutional “non-events”—meaning they are not considered Fourth Amendment “searches,” and therefore do not require probable cause—some lower courts have found that the context in which a sniff occurs can affect its constitutionality.  For example, while a sniff of luggage in a public airport terminal may not trigger Fourth Amendment scrutiny, a sniff of the front door to a private home indeed constitutes a search and thus requires probable cause.  Proponents of this distinction derive support from the Supreme Court’s 2001 decision in United States v. Kyllo, which held that governmental surveillance of private homes using thermal imagers triggers Fourth Amendment safeguards.  This Comment examines State v. Raab, a recent Florida appellate court decision, which found that a “front door sniff” comprises a Fourth Amendment search; it then disagrees with Raab’s holding and offers several arguments in support of the proposition that dog sniffs are generally unaffected by the context in which they occur.

First, this Comment submits that Raab misconstrued Kyllo, and ignored the absence of Supreme Court precedent suggesting any intent to abandon the sui generis treatment of the sniff as a non-constitutional event.  Second, this Comment examines the binary nature of the sniff and its narrow determination of the presence or absence of contraband.  Assuming that no right exists to be free from governmental suspicion, the sniff’s binary character ensures that no Fourth Amendment violation occurs—whether or not it yields the discovery of drugs.  Provided that the site from which the sniff occurs—the so-called “launching pad”—is open to the public, the Fourth Amendment is simply not implicated.  Finally, this Comment explores the distinction between “passive” and “active” surveillance technology, and submits that the sniff—as a form of passive technology—is minimally invasive, especially when performed upon inanimate objects.