Court Opinion

ID: 9682757
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 13:16:20.892828+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:16:39.885849
License: Public Domain

STAUBER, Judge,
concurring specially.
I agree with the result reached by the majority. But I write separately to emphasize that the issue of whether there were “specific and articulable facts” for the dog sniff, or whether the police were acting on an “unarticulated hunch,” is very close. The only “specific articulable facts” supporting the application for the search warrant were (1) the property manager’s statement that there was a high volume of short term traffic at apartment 8; and (2) the dog’s reaction to sniffing the air space immediately outside of several apartment doors, including apartment 8. Good police work requires police to carefully review, analyze, and follow up on tips and information of reported suspicious activity to determine whether, objectively, the information constitutes an articulable reason to order a dog-sniff. Hopefully, our decision will not be seen by police as yet a further expansion of dog-sniff searches over constitutionally protected privacy expectations.