Court Opinion

ID: 9473655
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 04:35:34.748973+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:43:39.362548
License: Public Domain

REINHARDT, Circuit Judge,
concurring:
I concur in the majority opinion. I write separately, however, to address an issue that the majority has chosen not to consider. The majority says that whether dogs may be brought unwanted and uninvited into people’s homes by law enforcement authorities in an effort to discover evidence is irrelevant in this case. In my opinion the issue is not irrelevant for two reasons. First, the case could as easily be decided on the ground that the Constitution prohibits this unprecedented and outrageous violation of individual rights as on the more convoluted fourth amendment ground the majority chooses to rely on. Second, since the Los Angeles Police Department apparently believes it is free to use dogs to search people’s homes, the United States Attorney agrees, and an actual case and controversy is now before us, we are, in my opinion, obligated to let our government officials know that they are absolutely wrong. If we fail to do so we encourage them to continue to violate people’s fundamental rights and permit them to continue to profess ignorance of the true meaning of the Constitution.
My very able and respected colleague, Judge Wallace, writing for the majority, describes the issue somewhat differently than I would. He says the issue is “whether the dog’s entry should be treated like that of any police officer or whether the sniff of a suitcase in a private home is a search.” The issue, in my view, may be put far more simply. May police officers bring dogs into private homes without the consent of the occupants in an attempt to obtain incriminating evidence? As far as I am concerned, the answer is equally simple: No, not as long as there is a right of privacy, not as long as the law protects us against unreasonable searches, and not as long as there is a difference under our Constitution between a person’s home and a public lamppost or fire hydrant.
The question is not, contrary to what the majority states, whether a dog’s entry is like a police officer’s (whatever that means) or whether a sniff is a search. The question is — can we be forced to allow large police dogs to come into our homes and do whatever large police dogs do? The intrusion of these dogs is offensive to some, frightening to others, and, sadly, to at least a few, reminiscent of the ugliest types of scenes that have occurred in police states. It is hardly the sniff of a suitcase that is at issue. It is first and foremost the unwanted and unwelcome presence of an animal in the privacy of our homes, an animal intruder that our law enforcement authorities tell us is simply another government agent. Moreover, it is most unrealistic to think that once law enforcement agencies obtain the right to bring police dogs into our living rooms, bedrooms, closets, and nurseries, the dogs will really be restricted to sniffing (or to describe more accurately what actually happens, sniffing and clamping their jaws around) suitcases. As sure as it is being argued today that it is constitutional for police dogs to come into our homes and sniff suitcases, it will be argued tomorrow that it is equally lawful for them to sniff and bite our clothes, beds, chairs, cradles, or whatever other possessions we keep in our homes. And can we really be *902assured that while the dogs are at it, they won’t be sniffing, snuffling, or otherwise molesting people as well? I think clearly not. See Doe v. Renfrow, 451 U.S. 1022, 101 S.Ct. 3015, 69 L.Ed.2d 395 (1981) (Brennan, J., dissenting from denial of certiora-ri). Based on the arguments presented to us, it is highly doubtful that the government officials involved in this case would see anything wrong with that either.
As our court has previously stated, the critical question in every fourth amendment case is whether the intrusion at issue is one that a free society is willing to tolerate. United States v. Solis, 536 F.2d 880, 881 (9th Cir.1976); United States v. Beale, 736 F.2d 1289, 1293 (en banc), (Pre-gerson, J., dissenting). It is inconceivable to me that the dispatch of dogs into citizens’ homes, with or without “probable cause,” constitutes the type of intrusion that this society would countenance, at least in the absence of an immediate and serious threat to human life or safety that can be avoided only by the use of canines. There can be no question that a substantial difference exists between a peace officer, on whom we have conferred the law enforcement authority of the state and who is at least familiar with the rudiments of fourth amendment protections, and a dog. A peace officer is clearly capable of conducting himself within the bounds of the Constitution if he wants to do so. It is, of course, unreasonable for us to expect a dog, even one trained by our finest police or customs officials, to appreciate the finer contours of the fourth amendment.
That trained canines may act merely as “instruments” of investigating officers does not, in my view, diminish the offensive character of the intrusion. History is replete with incidents in which dogs, acting as instruments of the state, have invaded people’s rights in furtherance of the state’s interest. In the antebellum South, dogs were used to ferret out blacks who sought little more than the same “free society” that the fourth amendment protects. During World War II, dogs were used in Nazi Germany to help locate Jews so that they could become a part of Hitler’s “Final Solu- ' tion”. Although the state of affairs has changed somewhat since these events transpired, the image of the police state is as clear now as it was then. I cannot believe that, except in the most compelling and extraordinary circumstances, our free society would be willing to tolerate the forced entry of dogs into private homes for purposes of law enforcement — and certainly not in order to seek out contraband or fugitives.
In any event, the government’s argument that the dog’s presence in Marin’s apartment and its sniff of his suitcase in that location was not a search is meritless. The government cites no case in which it has previously been permitted to invade a person’s home with an animal or in which any court has suggested that such governmental conduct is acceptable. Instead, the government relies on United States v. Place, 462 U.S. 696, 103 S.Ct. 2637, 77 L.Ed.2d 110 (1983). In Place, the Court said that exposure of the exterior of a traveler’s luggage, which was located in a public place, to a narcotics canine did not constitute a search of the luggage within the meaning of the fourth amendment. Here, of course, the canine was exposed to the interior of Marin’s entire apartment. It is the invasion of the apartment, not just the suitcase, that is at issue here. Because the dog sniff took place in Marin’s home, it is inconceivable to me that the animal’s activities were not subject to the demands and restrictions of the fourth amendment. See Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573, 100 S.Ct. 1371, 1381-82, 63 L.Ed.2d 639 (1980) (“The Fourth Amendment protects the individual’s privacy in a variety of settings. In none is the zone of privacy more clearly defined than when bounded by the unambiguous physical dimensions of an individual’s home — a zone that finds its roots in clear and specific constitutional terms: ‘The right of the people to be secure in their ... houses ... shall not be violat*903ed.’ ”); Sifuentes v. United States, 428 U.S. 543, 96 S.Ct. 3074, 3084, 49 L.Ed.2d 1116 (1976) (the sanctity of the private dwelling is ordinarily afforded the most stringent Fourth Amendment protection). Place is, therefore, wholly inapposite. See 1 W. LaFave, Search and Seizure: A Treatise on the Fourth Amendment § 2.2(f) at 286 (Supp.1985) (interpreting Place as limited to dog sniffs in public places; if an encounter between a dog and an object is achieved by bringing the dog into an area entitled to fourth amendment protection, that entry is itself a search subject to constitutional restrictions). In my view, the use of the canine in Marin’s apartment constituted a search, a grossly unreasonable one, and a flagrant violation of Marin’s rights under the Fourth Amendment.
As far as I am aware, the United States government has never before, at least in this century, contended that there is no difference between man and beast, that a police officer and a police dog are one and the same for purposes of the fourth amendment, or that it has the right to bring dogs into our homes against our will when it is looking for contraband or when it suspects us of having engaged in some form of criminal activity. I would hope that it never does so again. Unfortunately, I suspect the chances for this might have been far better had my colleagues been willing to confront an issue that they could properly have decided if they had thought it important to do so.1

. While insisting that the issue is irrelevant, the majority appends an analysis of past precedents relating to the use of dogs in other circumstances. Although the cases cited are of little significance here (it is interesting, but not relevant, for example, that the Second Circuit has recently held that a dog's sniffing of the exterior of a house constitutes a search for purposes of the Fourth Amendment, United States v. Thomas, 757 F.2d 1359 (2d Cir.1985)), the majority suggests that invasions of homes by dogs may not be as offensive as I have stated. Its explanation is that no court has previously said that consent is required before dogs can be brought into people’s homes to muck about and conduct searches. Of course no court has previously said so. No court has been required to. In no case cited by the majority or the government have law enforcement officials ever before contended that private homes may be invaded by government dogs with or without what would constitute probable cause in the case of human police officers.
For the reasons I have explained, I believe we should say so now. Future courts certainly should say so when and if the issue arises again. In the meantime, my colleagues’ wholly gratuitous comments on an issue they deem to be irrelevant to the case before us would appear to tell us precious little about the Constitution and, in fact, to serve no useful purpose whatever.