Opinion ID: 3008597
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Narcotics-Detection Dog Sniffs

Text: The parties concede that Officer Burgess lawfully stopped the vehicle in this case for a traffic violation, and they also concede that the officers could subject the vehicle to a dog sniff by a narcotics-detection dog. [A] canine sniff by a well-trained narcotics-detection dog [is treated as] `sui egneris ' because it `discloses only the presence or absence of narcotics, a contraband item.' Illinois v. Caballes , 543 U .S . 405, 409 (2005) (quoting United States v. Place, 462 U.S . 696, 707 (1983)) . [T]he 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 law traffic stop, generally does not implicate legitimate privacy interests. Id . (quoting Place , 462 U .S. at 707) . A dog sniff conducted during a concededly lawful traffic stop that reveals no information other than the location of a substance that no individual has any right to possess does not violate the Fourth Amendment. Id. at 410.