United States v. Daniel Thomas Lewis
708 F.2d 1078, 1983 U.S. App. LEXIS 26900 (1983)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The use of a trained canine to detect the odor of narcotics emanating from personal luggage located in a public place does not constitute a 'search' within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment.
Facts:
- At a Miami airport, Daniel Lewis purchased a ticket to Detroit under one name, while carrying a driver's license issued in a different name.
- Lewis's suitcase had two different names affixed to it.
- Before the flight departed, law enforcement had a trained narcotics-detection dog sniff Lewis's suitcase, which was placed in an array with other luggage; the dog showed a 'not a strong positive reaction.'
- Upon arriving in Detroit, Lewis deplaned, bypassed his baggage claim area, and watched it from another location for approximately 15 minutes.
- Lewis then left the airport without claiming his luggage.
- DEA agents in Detroit then had a second trained dog sniff the suitcase, which was again comingled with other bags; this dog exhibited a 'positive reaction for controlled substances.'
- Several hours later, another man arrived to claim the suitcase, stating that Lewis had paid him $20 to retrieve it.
Procedural Posture:
- Daniel Lewis was charged with possession with intent to distribute cocaine in federal trial court.
- Following a bench trial conducted on stipulated facts, the trial court found Lewis guilty.
- The trial court sentenced Lewis to four months imprisonment and two years probation.
- Lewis, as appellant, filed a direct appeal of his conviction to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.
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 trained canine to sniff luggage for the presence of narcotics constitute a 'search' under the Fourth Amendment, thereby requiring a warrant or probable cause?
Opinions:
Majority - Krupansky, Circuit Judge.
No, the use of a trained canine to sniff luggage for the presence of narcotics does not constitute a 'search' under the Fourth Amendment. An individual does not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the odor emanating from a closed object in a public place, as that odor is accessible to the public. The use of a trained dog is merely a permissible enhancement of an officer's natural sensory faculties, similar to using technology like a beeper to aid visual surveillance as upheld in United States v. Knotts. The court aligns with the majority of federal circuits in adopting a 'public smell' doctrine, analogous to the 'plain view' doctrine, which holds that what is exposed to the public is not subject to Fourth Amendment protection. The court also dismissed the appellant's argument that a grammatical error in the search warrant (using 'on the object' instead of 'in the object') invalidated it, calling the objection hypertechnical and reaffirming that warrants must be interpreted in a commonsense, realistic fashion.
Analysis:
This decision aligns the Sixth Circuit with the majority of other federal circuits, establishing that a canine sniff of luggage in a public area is not a Fourth Amendment search. This ruling lowers the constitutional threshold for this type of preliminary investigation, allowing law enforcement to use narcotics-detection dogs without needing reasonable suspicion or probable cause. It reinforces the legal principle that there is no reasonable expectation of privacy in contraband odors emanating from personal property, thereby giving law enforcement a significant and minimally regulated tool for drug interdiction in transportation hubs.
