Opinion ID: 884427
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: The Canine-Sniff Approach

Text: Many courts have analogized the use of thermal imagers to the use of trained drug-detecting dogs. See Pinson, 24 F.3d at 1058; Ford, 34 F.3d at 997; Myers, 46 F.3d at 670. Relying on the United States Supreme Court's decision in U.S. v. Place (1983), 462 U.S. 696, 103 S.Ct. 2637, 77 L.Ed.2d 110, the courts in Pinson, Ford and Myers all concluded that use of a thermal imager does not constitute a search within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment. In Place, the defendant was waiting in line at the Miami International Airport to purchase a ticket to New York when his behavior aroused the suspicions of law enforcement officers. The officers approached Place and requested his ticket and his identification. Place complied with their requests and consented to a search of his checked luggage, but, because his flight was about to depart, the officers decided to forego a search. They noted, however, some discrepancies in the street addresses on the tags for Place's two suitcases. Upon further investigation, the officers discovered that neither address existed. They then contacted DEA authorities in New York. Two DEA agents were waiting for Place when he arrived in New York. After observing more suspicious behavior by Place, they approached him and requested his identification. When Place refused to consent to a search of his luggage, the agents seized his suitcases and subjected them to a sniff test by a trained drug-detecting dog. The dog reacted positively to one of the suitcases. The agents subsequently obtained a search warrant and discovered 1125 grams of cocaine. Place moved to suppress the contents of the luggage seized from him claiming that the warrantless seizure of the luggage violated his Fourth Amendment rights. In attempting to determine that issue, the United States Supreme Court concluded that exposing luggage to the olfactory senses of a trained drug-detecting dog is not a search because it does not require opening the luggage. Place, 462 U.S. at 707, 103 S.Ct. at 2644-45, 77 L.Ed.2d at 121. The Court stated: [A canine sniff] does not expose noncontraband items that otherwise would remain hidden from public view, as does, for example, an officer's rummaging through the contents of the luggage. Thus, the manner in which information is obtained through this investigative technique is much less intrusive than a typical search. Moreover, the sniff discloses only the presence or absence of narcotics, a contraband item. Thus, despite the fact that the sniff tells the authorities something about the contents of the luggage, the information obtained is limited. This limited disclosure also ensures that the owner of the property is not subjected to the embarrassment and inconvenience entailed in less discriminate and more intrusive investigative methods. Place, 462 U.S. at 707, 103 S.Ct. at 2644, 77 L.Ed.2d at 121. However, in U.S. v. Thomas (2nd Cir.1985), 757 F.2d 1359, cert. denied, 474 U.S. 819, 106 S.Ct. 66, 88 L.Ed.2d 54, the use of a trained dog to sniff for narcotics outside defendant's apartment was held to constitute a search that, in the absence of a warrant, violated the Fourth Amendment. In Penny-Feeney, along with analogizing the waste heat to garbage, the court in that case also likened the use of thermal imagers to the use of police dogs trained to sniff and identify the presence of drugs. Relying on U.S. v. Solis (9th Cir.1976), 536 F.2d 880, wherein the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held that use of the dogs was not unreasonable under the circumstances and was not a prohibited search under the Fourth Amendment, the Penny-Feeney court stated: Use of the [thermal imager], like use of the dog sniff, entailed no embarrassment to or search of the person. Heat emanations, the target here, are comparable to the odor emanations in Solis since they constitute a physical fact indicative of possible crime, not protected communications. Penny-Feeney, 773 F.Supp. at 227. The flaw in the canine-sniff approach is that thermal imagers provide information about heat emissions both legal and illegal while canine sniffs only provide information about the presence of illicit substances. A thermal imager cannot limit its detection to information regarding illegal activities. Moreover, the radiation of inordinate amounts of heat does not necessarily imply that illegal activity is taking place in the same manner that the smell of illicit drugs implies their presence.