United States v. David Sharp
689 F.3d 616, 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 15511, 2012 WL 3047338 (2012)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A trained narcotics canine’s instinctive jump into a vehicle through an open window and subsequent sniff of the interior is not a search in violation of the Fourth Amendment, provided the police did not encourage, facilitate, or orchestrate the dog’s entry.
Facts:
- David W. Sharp was arrested on an unrelated warrant while he was in his car.
- At the scene of the arrest, the driver's side window of Sharp's car was down.
- A police officer arrived with a trained narcotics detection canine.
- The officer commanded the dog to sniff the exterior of Sharp's vehicle.
- While circling the car, the dog sniffed near the driver's door, then turned back.
- Without a command or physical encouragement from the handler, the dog jumped through the open driver's window into the car.
- Once inside, the dog alerted to a shaving kit on the front passenger seat.
- A subsequent search of the shaving kit revealed methamphetamine, marijuana, and drug paraphernalia.
Procedural Posture:
- David W. Sharp was found guilty by a jury in a federal district court of possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine.
- Prior to trial, Sharp filed a motion in the district court to suppress the drug evidence found in his car.
- A magistrate judge held an evidentiary hearing and recommended that the motion to suppress be denied.
- Sharp objected to the magistrate judge's report, but not specifically on the grounds of the dog's conduct.
- The district court adopted the magistrate judge's recommendation and denied Sharp's motion to suppress.
- Sharp (appellant) appealed the district court's denial of his motion to suppress 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 a narcotics detection dog's jump into a suspect's car through an open window and subsequent sniff of the interior constitute a search in violation of the Fourth Amendment when the police did not encourage or facilitate the dog's entry?
Opinions:
Majority - Karen K. Caldwell
No. A trained canine's sniff inside a car after instinctively jumping into it is not a search that violates the Fourth Amendment as long as the police did not encourage or facilitate the dog’s jump. While an exterior sniff of a car is not a search, the police and canine must be lawfully present where the sniff occurs. The court adopts the reasoning of other circuits, holding that the Fourth Amendment inquiry focuses on police conduct. A search becomes unconstitutional if officers facilitate the dog's entry, such as by opening a door or training the dog to enter vehicles. Here, the dog's jump was a product of its training to find drugs and its own instinct to follow a scent, not police misconduct. The police have no affirmative duty to close an open car window before conducting a canine sniff.
Analysis:
This decision aligns the Sixth Circuit with the Third, Eighth, and Tenth Circuits, establishing a consistent federal standard regarding canine sniffs involving vehicle interiors. The ruling clarifies that the key factor in the Fourth Amendment analysis is police conduct, not the autonomous or instinctive actions of the canine. It provides law enforcement with a clear boundary: they may use canines around vehicles with open windows or doors, but they cannot affirmatively facilitate or encourage the canine's entry. This precedent distinguishes between an 'instinctive' entry by a dog following a scent and an 'orchestrated' entry resulting from police action, protecting against police overreach while allowing for effective canine use.
