Occasionally police use drug-sniffing dogs when they stop a car that may contain narcotics. Although the dog is specifically trained to sniff out the contents of the vehicle and alert officers if drugs are present, this does not amount to a search in the eyes of the Supreme Judicial Court (SJC).
In Commonwealth v. Feyenord, the SJC writes,
When we confront the question whether police activities amount to a search or seizure within the meaning of art. 14, we ask whether the defendants’ expectation of privacy in the circumstances is one which society could recognize as reasonable. We agree with the Appeals Court that the dog’s sniff and resulting ‘alert’ would constitute a search only if society were prepared to say that the defendant was reasonable in his subjective expectation of privacy in the odor of cocaine emanating from his car. We think that society is wholly unprepared and unwilling to take that step. Accordingly, we conclude that a dog sniff of a properly stopped vehicle is not a search under art. 14. (Citations and quotations omitted.)
The SJC is quick to add the following footnote to their decision:
The use of dogs in other settings (e.g., to sniff the body of a person or the odors emanating from private homes) is not at issue in this case, and would have to be evaluated based on whether the privacy expectation in each of those settings is one society is willing to deem reasonable. For example, we note the heightened protection afforded homes in our search and seizure jurisprudence.
What do you think?