DRUG DOG DIDN'T VIOLATE RIGHTS, COURT DECIDES

A drug-sniffing dog's random inspection of a Slidell parking lot that led to
the discovery of heroin, cocaine and marijuana didn't violate a motel
guest's Fourth Amendment rights, a state judge ruled Wednesday.

Judge Larry J. Green in Covington ruled against the motel guest's request to
suppress evidence of drugs collected after a detective was tipped off by his
dog as they walked through the lot last year.

John Val Popoff, 42, of Midland, Mich., was later charged with possession of
heroin and cocaine and possession with intent to deliver marijuana.

On Aug. 20, Detective James McIntosh of the St. Tammany Parish Drug Task
Force walked his drug-detecting dog, Lucy, next to cars parked outside the
Comfort Inn, 2010 Old Spanish Trail.

When the dog alerted on a red 2001 Ford Mustang, McIntosh determined the
owner's name and asked motel management for his room number, police said.
McIntosh knocked on Room 130, and Popoff agreed to let the detective search
his room. McIntosh found heroin and cocaine in the room and marijuana in his
car, police said.

McIntosh testified during a Feb. 18 hearing that he learned of the technique
at a law enforcement convention in El Paso, Texas. A seminar speaker advised
police to consider hotels and motels prime spots to find stolen cars,
prostitutes, runaway juveniles and drugs.

Citing a 1983 U.S. Supreme Court decision, Green said the dog's actions
didn't constitute a search under the Fourth Amendment, which protects "the
right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and
effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures."

In United States v. Place, the high court ruled that a canine's sniffing of
an airline passenger's luggage didn't constitute a search, and Miami police
weren't required to seek a search warrant before the inspection.

"This decision has been followed by Louisiana state courts on numerous
occasions," Green said.

Defense attorney John Lindner argued in his motion to suppress evidence that
the dog's actions constituted the first search of Popoff's car.

He argued that McIntosh didn't have specific information to suspect the
Comfort Inn was a center of illegal activity, and the motel didn't post
signs that guests would be subject to police surveillance.

"Det. McIntosh testified that he conducted this operation without even a
hunch, much less a quantum of individualized suspicion, reasonable cause or
probable cause of suspected criminal activity," Lindner wrote.

Lindner compared the detective's sweep of the hotel parking lot to a police
roadblock.

In 2000, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Indianapolis v. Edmond that police
violated two drivers' Fourth Amendment rights by walking drug dogs around
their cars as they stopped for the roadblock. The court ruled that police
must have "individualized suspicion" that a driver is committing a crime
other than a traffic violation before using the drug-sniffing dogs.

"If the court does not draw the line at this type of operation, the Fourth
Amendment would do little to prevent such intrusions from being a routine
part of American life," Lindner wrote.

Assistant District Attorney Ronnie Gracianette argued in a written motion
that a 1993 Supreme Court case, United States v. Ludwig, held that drug
dogs' inspections aren't searches.

"Since there is no search, the question of whether the defendant had an
expectation of privacy in a motel parking lot is irrelevant," Gracianette
wrote.

Lindner said he will appeal the decision, but he speculated that an
appellate court isn't likely to accept the writ until after a jury verdict.
Popoff's trial is scheduled to start May 24.