I agree with the Supreme Court’s decision that dog sniffs are not searches, and do not required a search warrant or probable cause, as long as the police are lawfully in the place where the dogs conduct the sniffing; because the dogs are not necessarily invading the privacy of the person being search. The sniffing dogs are not going through the person’s belongings, they are just sniffing the outside of the containers which are closed. Specially, if the sniff is being done in a public place, such as an airport. According to Del Carmen “the use of police dogs to sniff containers and luggage to detect contraband at airports does not constitute a search. No warrant or probable cause is needed as long as the container or luggage is located in a public place” (p. 212). As long as the dogs conduct the sniff in a public place, then the rights of the Fourth Amendment against unreasonable search and seizures are not violated. …show more content…
Caballes, 543 U.S. 405 (2005), the Court held that “a dog sniff conducted during a concededly lawful traffic stop that reveals no information other than the location of a substance that no individual has any right to possess does not violate the Fourth Amendment” (Del Carmen, p. 216). Meaning that as long as the traffic stop conducted by police officers was lawful and the sniffing dogs were there at the time of the stop, then the sniff was justified and did not violate the Fourth Amendment, because all the dog did was to just give a location and no other information. Also, the sniff was conducted in a public