sniff test in Indiana

2005With respect to his claim that the dog sniff was unconstitutional, the defendant concedes that such dog sniffs are not "searches" requiring probable cause under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution, but he contends that canine sniff activities must be supported by reasonable individualized suspicion, citing Cannon v. State, 722 N.E.2d 881, 884 (Ind.Ct.App.2000) and Kenner v. State, 703 N.E.2d 1122, 1125 (Ind.Ct.App.1999), as well as several federal cases condemning "fishing expeditions." The defendant argues that the sniff test in this case lacked individualized reasonable su

2005With respect to his claim that the dog sniff was unconstitutional, the defendant concedes that such dog sniffs are not "searches" requiring probable cause under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution, but he contends that canine sniff activities must be supported by reasonable individualized suspicion, citing Cannon v. State, 722 N.E.2d 881, 884 (Ind.Ct.App.2000) and Kenner v. State, 703 N.E.2d 1122, 1125 (Ind.Ct.App.1999), as well as several federal cases condemning "fishing expeditions." The defendant argues that the sniff test in this case lacked individualized reasonable su

2005With respect to his claim that the dog sniff was unconstitutional, the defendant concedes that such dog sniffs are not "searches" requiring probable cause under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution, but he contends that canine sniff activities must be supported by reasonable individualized suspicion, citing Cannon v. State, 722 N.E.2d 881, 884 (Ind.Ct.App.2000) and Kenner v. State, 703 N.E.2d 1122, 1125 (Ind.Ct.App.1999), as well as several federal cases condemning "fishing expeditions." The defendant argues that the sniff test in this case lacked individualized reasonable su

2005With respect to his claim that the dog sniff was unconstitutional, the defendant concedes that such dog sniffs are not "searches" requiring probable cause under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution, but he contends that canine sniff activities must be supported by reasonable individualized suspicion, citing Cannon v. State, 722 N.E.2d 881, 884 (Ind.Ct.App.2000) and Kenner v. State, 703 N.E.2d 1122, 1125 (Ind.Ct.App.1999), as well as several federal cases condemning "fishing expeditions." The defendant argues that the sniff test in this case lacked individualized reasonable su

2005See, eg., United States v. Quinn, 815 F.2d 158, 159 (Ist Cir.1987) (Holding, in the context of car parked in a driveway, "[to be entitled to use a dog for purposes of making a sniff test, the officers were required merely to have had 'reasonable suspicion' that the car contained narcotics, at the moment it was performed."); see also United States v. Place, 462 U.S. 696, 723 , 103 S.Ct. 2637 , 77 LEd.2d 110 (1983) ("A dog sniff may be a search, but a minimally intrusive one that could be justified in this situation under Terry upon mere reasonable suspicion.") (Blackmun, J., concurring in an op

2005See, eg., United States v. Quinn, 815 F.2d 158, 159 (Ist Cir.1987) (Holding, in the context of car parked in a driveway, "[to be entitled to use a dog for purposes of making a sniff test, the officers were required merely to have had 'reasonable suspicion' that the car contained narcotics, at the moment it was performed."); see also United States v. Place, 462 U.S. 696, 723 , 103 S.Ct. 2637 , 77 LEd.2d 110 (1983) ("A dog sniff may be a search, but a minimally intrusive one that could be justified in this situation under Terry upon mere reasonable suspicion.") (Blackmun, J., concurring in an op

2006The question we reserved for another day in Kenner was answered in State v. Hawkins, 766 N.E.2d 749, 752 (Ind.Ct.App.2002), trans. denied 783 N.E.2d 690 (Ind.2002), where we held "we have no hesitation in deciding that when a trained and experienced police officer detects the strong and distinctive odor of burnt marijuana coming from a vehicle, the officer has probable cause to search the vehicle. 1 We relied on Johnson v. United States, 333 U.S. 10, 13 , 68 S.Ct. 367 , 92 L.Ed. 436 (1948): If the presence of odors is testified to before a magistrate and he finds the affiant qualified to know

2005See, e.g., United States v. Quinn, 815 F.2d 153, 159 (1st Cir.1987) (Holding, in the context of car parked in a driveway, "[t]o be entitled to use a dog for purposes of making a sniff test, the officers were required merely to have had `reasonable suspicion' that the car contained narcotics, at the moment it was performed."); see also United States v. Place, 462 U.S. 696, 723 , 103 S.Ct. 2637 , 77 L.Ed.2d 110 (1983) ("A dog sniff may be a search, but a minimally intrusive one that could be justified in this situation under Terry upon mere reasonable suspicion.") (Blackmun, J., concurring in an

2005City of Indianapolis v. Edmond, 531 U.S. 32, 40 , 121 S.Ct. 447 , 148 L.Ed.2d 333 (2000) ("A sniff by a dog that simply walks around a car is much less intrusive than a typical search."); United States v. Place, 462 U.S. 696, 706-07 , 108 S.Ct. 2637 , 77 L.Ed.2d 110 (1983) (The exposure of the defendant's luggage "to a trained canine did not constitute a 'search' within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment.").

2005City of Indianapolis v. Edmond, 531 U.S. 32, 40 , 121 S.Ct. 447 , 148 L.Ed.2d 333 (2000) ("A sniff by a dog that simply walks around a car is much less intrusive than a typical search."); United States v. Place, 462 U.S. 696, 706-07 , 108 S.Ct. 2637 , 77 L.Ed.2d 110 (1983) (The exposure of the defendant's luggage "to a trained canine did not constitute a 'search' within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment.").

2005The United States Supreme Court has recently addressed "[wlhether the Fourth Amendment requires reasonable, articula-ble suspicion to justify using a drug-detection dog to sniff a vehicle during a legitimate traffic stop." Ilinois v. Caballes, 543 U.S. 405 , 125 S.Ct. 834, 887 , 160 LEd.2d 842, 846 (2005).

2005The United States Supreme Court has recently addressed "[wlhether the Fourth Amendment requires reasonable, articula-ble suspicion to justify using a drug-detection dog to sniff a vehicle during a legitimate traffic stop." Ilinois v. Caballes, 543 U.S. 405 , 125 S.Ct. 834, 887 , 160 LEd.2d 842, 846 (2005).