Opinion ID: 1986193
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Search Incident to Dog Sniff

Text: Contrary to what is suggested by Bergmann, this was not a search incident to citation held to be unconstitutional by Knowles v. Iowa, 525 U.S. 113, 117-18, 119 S.Ct. 484, 487-88, 142 L.Ed.2d 492, 497 (1998). When the dog was alerted by smelling the presence of narcotics, this provided police with probable cause to search the vehicle. Several cases have concluded that a reliable drug dog alert alone is enough to establish probable cause to search. United States v. Booker, 186 F.3d 1004, 1006 (8th Cir.1999); $404,905.00 in United States Currency, 182 F.3d at 647; accord United States v. Sundby, 186 F.3d 873, 876 (8th Cir.1999) (A dog's positive indication alone is enough to establish probable cause for the presence of a controlled substance if the dog is reliable.); United States v. Massie, 65 F.3d 843, 849 (10th Cir.1995) (holding that when the dog was alerted to the presence of narcotics in the car, police had probable cause to search it). Here, no argument has been put forth to challenge the dog's reliability. We have said that a warrantless search can be justified under these circumstances: (1) consent to search; (2) the presence of probable cause and exigent circumstances; (3) objects in plain view; or (4) search conducted incident to a lawful arrest. State v. Kubit, 627 N.W.2d 914, 918 (Iowa 2001); State v. Cadotte, 542 N.W.2d 834, 836 (Iowa 1996). Because the drug dog alert established probable cause, the police legally searched the car without a warrant under the probable cause plus exigent circumstances exception to the warrant requirement. See State v. Predka, 555 N.W.2d 202, 207 (Iowa 1996) (Exigent circumstances existed because [the defendant's] car was mobile and its contents could have been lost if a search warrant had to be obtained.); see also State v. Tucker, 132 Idaho 841, 979 P.2d 1199, 1201 (1999) ([A]n officer's investigation at the scene of a stopped automobile can ripen into probable cause as soon as a drug detection dog alerts on the exterior of the vehicle, justifying a search of the vehicle without the necessity of obtaining a warrant.). This exception is also known as the automobile exception to the Fourth Amendment. State v. Dawdy, 533 N.W.2d 551, 556 (Iowa 1995) (The automobile exception to the Fourth Amendment requirement of a search warrant is applicable if probable cause and exigent circumstances exist when the police stop an automobile.). This is implicated when the facts and circumstances would lead a reasonably prudent person to believe the automobile contains contraband and when the automobile is mobile and the automobile's contents may never be found again if the police must obtain a warrant. Id. As both circumstances exist here, the search conducted falls within a recognized exception and did not violate the Fourth Amendment. AFFIRMED. All justices concur except STREIT, J., who takes no part.