United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

Traffic stop not supported by reasonable suspicion.

The district court erred by denying the defendant’s motion to suppress the evidence seized during the traffic stop. The defendant argued the traffic stop violated the Fourth Amendment and that all evidence seized as a result of the stop should be suppressed.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth District held that even if the officer had probable cause to stop the defendant, the evidence seized as a result of the stop must be suppressed.

The court held when the officer informed the defendant he believed drugs were in the car, and he would call a canine unit to the scene; he extended the scope and duration necessary to issue a citation for a tag-light violation. The officer had not developed reasonable suspicion of criminal activity by this point. Therefore, the rest of the stop violated the Fourth Amendment.

The district court’s denial of defendant’s motion to suppress was reversed and the case was remanded. United States v. Blair, case no. 06-06036/6037, decided and filed May 2, 2008.

Court allows for dog sniff outside of home!

The trial court erred by suppressing the evidence against the defendant on the ground the canine sniff, which provided the probable cause for the issuance of the search warrant, was obtained in violation of the of the rights guaranteed by the Fourth Amendment.

The police received information from an informant regarding defendant’s alleged possession and sale of marijuana.

Prompted by this information, the police arranged to have a trained narcotics-detection dog brought to the defendant’s residence so a canine sniff could be conducted. The dog gave a positive indication for narcotics at the front door of the residence. Based on the dog’s reaction, as well as their prior information, the police obtained a search warrant to search the premises.

The court held that the canine was lawfully present at the front door of the defendant’s residence when it detected the presence of contraband. Under Michigan law, the police can lawfully stand on a person’s front porch and look through the windows into the person’s home, so long as there is no evidence the person expected the porch to remain private, such as by erecting a fence or a gate.

Any contraband sniffed by the canine while on defendant’s front porch, fell within the “canine sniff” rule.

The court reversed and remanded for an entry of an order denying the defendant’s motion to suppress the search warrant. People v. Jones, case no. 275438, released May 20, 2008.

Editor’s Note: The Jones Court cited Illinois v. Caballes, 543 U.S. 405 (2005). In Caballes, supra, the police stopped the defendant for speeding. An officer walked his dog around the car, and the dog alerted at the trunk. Based on the alert, the officers searched the trunk, found marijuana and arrested the defendant. The Court held that “the use of a well-trained narcotics –detection dog-one that does not expose non-contraband items that otherwise would remain hidden from public view, during a lawful traffic stop generally does not implicate legitimate privacy interests.”