SUPREME COURT TO RULE ON USE OF DRUG-SNIFFING DOGS

Washington -- The Supreme Court agreed Friday to decide whether
police may use a drug-sniffing dog at the front door of a house or an
apartment to detect marijuana, even if the officers have no evidence
of criminal conduct.

The decision in a Florida case will be the latest test of the Fourth
Amendment's protection against unreasonable searches in drug cases.
It also will be the third in a trilogy of rulings on drug-sniffing dogs.

In the past, the court has upheld the use of dogs to sniff luggage at
airports and to sniff around cars that were stopped along the
highway. The justices said that using trained dogs in public areas
didn't violate anyone's right to privacy.

The Florida Supreme Court, however, said homes are different. The
Fourth Amendment "applies with extra force where the sanctity of the
home is concerned," the state justices said last year.

Based on that rationale, they overturned a Miami man's conviction for
growing marijuana at home. Acting on a tip, officers had taken
Franky, a Labrador retriever, to the front porch of a home owned by
Joelis Jardines. The dog detected the odor of marijuana and sat down
as he was trained to do. The police then used this information to
obtain a search warrant. They found 179 marijuana plants inside the house.

Throwing out the evidence, the state justices said they were
unwilling to permit "dog sniff tests ... at the home of any citizen"
unless the police had "probable cause" of criminal wrongdoing.

Eighteen states are supporting Florida's appeal and argue police dogs
are a valuable tool for detecting drugs.

The high court usually sides with the police in search cases. In May,
the justices ruled police were justified in breaking down the door of
an apartment in Lexington, Ky., because they smelled marijuana and
believed the occupants were about to destroy the evidence. In an 8-1
decision, the court reasoned the police did not have time to obtain a
search warrant.

But not every search method wins approval. The justices rejected the
use of thermal imagers, which can detect the heat of powerful lights
used to grow marijuana. In that case, the court decided that the
device allows police to look into a house and thereby violates the
privacy rights of the homeowners.

The court said Friday it would hear the case of Florida vs. Jardines
in April and issue a ruling by late June.