SUPREME COURT MUST DEFINE POLICE DOG USE AS A SEARCH

The U.S. Supreme Court decided yesterday to hear a case involving a
driver charged with drug possession. The driver, Roy Caballes, was
stopped for a routine speed violation when a canine unit searched his
vehicle. $250,000 worth of marijuana was found in the vehicle and
confiscated. The issue the Supreme Court will have to address is the
legality of the search executed upon Caballes' property. Although he
had declined to allow a search, a second officer arrived on scene with
a canine unit just as the accused was about to be released. At this
point, the officers led the dog on a search of the vehicle that
indicated drugs were inside. Closer inspection yielded the large
quantity of marijuana.

Lower courts have been indecisive in determining the extent of the
probable cause involved in Caballes' case. The police argue the
trained canine units are acceptable as an indication of probable
cause, as it only extends the sensory abilities of the officer. But
surely, for that very reason, a dog is a method and tool of a search -
not an identifying factor of probable cause.

A typical police dog is not in any way comparable to a flashlight used
by an officer to run over a car or through the windows. The dog
extends a great deal beyond the natural sensory abilities of any human
being and can be used de facto as a method to reveal otherwise
undetectable evidence - as Caballes' case demonstrates. There is an
unreasonable capacity for detection that exceeds any cursory
inspection used to identify probable cause.

The definitions of probable cause should extend no further than the
personal ability of the officer. Any method that extends unreasonably
beyond an officer's capability to identify clues implying
incriminating activity constitutes a search. The officer is by
definition seeking incriminating evidence without knowledge or
suspicion of its presence - he is conducting a search.

Our laws and courts have demanded police observe the premise of
probable cause. It is a system of law developed in this nation to
protect the rights of the individual from abuse by the law, and the
police must operate within it. The law is the law, no matter how it
inconveniences its own execution and implication.

Because Caballes did not consent to be searched, the use of the canine
unit to identify and locate his supply of illicit drugs in the absence
of probable cause constitutes an unlawful search. The Supreme Court
must protect the individual's rights against unreasonable searches and
seizures and apply the process of probable cause to the use of canine
units.