People v. Devone
15 N.Y.3d 106, 931 N.E.2d 70 (2010)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under Article I, § 12 of the New York Constitution, a canine sniff of the exterior of a lawfully stopped vehicle is a search that requires police to have a founded suspicion that criminal activity is afoot.
Facts:
- In People v. Devone, police stopped a vehicle driven by Troy Washington for talking on a cell phone.
- Washington could not produce a license or registration, claimed the car was his cousin's, but did not know his cousin's name.
- Washington then identified the passenger, defendant Devone, as his cousin.
- A records check revealed the vehicle was registered to a female, inconsistent with Washington's story.
- In People v. Abdur-Rashid, an officer stopped defendant's vehicle for a missing front license plate, about 45 minutes after another officer had stopped him for the same reason.
- The defendant appeared 'fidgety and nervous' during the stop and repeatedly glanced at the K-9 unit in the officer's vehicle.
- The defendant's passenger gave the officer a convoluted and implausible explanation for their travel plans.
- The defendant's vehicle also had sticks and debris protruding from its front, which the officer found unusual.
Procedural Posture:
- In People v. Devone, defendant Devone was indicted for criminal possession of a controlled substance.
- The trial court (County Court) granted Devone's motion to suppress the evidence, holding the canine sniff was an illegal search.
- The prosecution appealed, and the intermediate appellate court (Appellate Division, Third Department) reversed, holding the sniff only required founded suspicion, which the police possessed.
- In People v. Abdur-Rashid, defendant Abdur-Rashid was indicted for criminal possession of a controlled substance.
- The trial court (County Court) denied Abdur-Rashid's motion to suppress evidence.
- The defendant appealed, and the intermediate appellate court (Appellate Division, Third Department) affirmed the trial court's decision.
- Both defendants were granted leave to appeal to the New York Court of Appeals, the state's highest court.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the use of a canine to sniff the exterior of a lawfully stopped vehicle require reasonable suspicion of criminal activity to be a valid search under Article I, § 12 of the New York Constitution?
Opinions:
Majority - Pigott, J.
No. A canine sniff of a vehicle's exterior constitutes a search under the New York Constitution but only requires a founded suspicion of criminality, not the higher standard of reasonable suspicion. The court reasoned that while a person has a reasonable expectation of privacy in their automobile, it is a 'diminished' expectation compared to that of a home. Balancing this diminished privacy interest against the significant utility and less intrusive nature of a canine sniff, the court determined that the 'founded suspicion' standard is the appropriate predicate. In both cases, the defendants' inconsistent statements, nervousness, and implausible stories provided the police with the necessary founded suspicion to justify the sniff.
Dissenting - Ciparick, J.
Yes. A canine sniff of a vehicle's exterior is a search that should require reasonable suspicion that the vehicle contains illicit drugs. The dissent argues that while the expectation of privacy is lower in a car than a home, this distinction has historically justified dispensing with the warrant requirement (the automobile exception), not lowering the required level of suspicion for a search. The majority's holding departs from precedent where 'founded suspicion' only permitted law enforcement to ask questions, not conduct a search. By not requiring a nexus between the officer's suspicion and the specific capability of the drug-sniffing dog, the majority's rule sanctions 'fishing expeditions' based on a low level of suspicion.
Analysis:
This decision establishes a significant precedent in New York constitutional law by creating a distinct standard for canine sniffs of vehicles. It affirms that New York provides greater privacy protection than the U.S. Constitution (which does not consider an exterior sniff a search), but sets a lower bar—'founded suspicion'—than the 'reasonable suspicion' required for a sniff of a home's exterior under People v. Dunn. The case creates a new intermediate tier of police intrusion, differentiating vehicle searches from both residential searches and general street encounters. Future litigation will likely focus on defining the precise factual circumstances that elevate an officer's hunch to the level of 'founded suspicion'.
