HIGH COURT WON'T DECIDE WHETHER DRUG-SNIFFING DOG VIOLATES PRIVACY

The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday turned down a request to look at a
Florida appeals case that asks whether a police dog sniffing for
marijuana from outside a Hollywood residence constitutes a legal search.

The issue came up when a Hollywood man was arrested in April 2002 on
drug charges, including possession of 64 marijuana plants, after a
police dog sniffed the front door of the man's house and alerted its
handler that there were drugs inside.

A Broward circuit judgeruled that the search of
James Rabb's home was a violation of his Fourth Amendment rights
against unreasonable searches and seizures because the search warrant
had been issued based only on the dog sniff at the front door.

Prosecutors asked the justices to look at the case, hoping the court
could define for this case and others how great an expectation of
privacy people should expect in their homes, and whether a police dog
sniffing at the front door constitutes a violation of privacy.

The state attorney general's office has argued that drug-dog sniffs
disclose only the presence of narcotics and do not intrude on a
legitimate expectation of privacy.

Rabb's case has already been before the Supreme Court. Last year, the
justices directed a Florida appeals court to take a 2005 Supreme
Court decision into consideration. In that case, the Supreme Court
said a drug dog sniffing out marijuana in a car during a traffic stop
does not violate the Fourth Amendment.

Early this year, the appeals court affirmed its earlier decision to
suppress the evidence. Attempts to reach Rabb at three phone numbers
listed under his name were unsuccessful.

Information from The Associated Press was used in this report.