St. Paul (AP) Minnesota's top court is putting police dogs on a shorter leash, ruling that handlers must have reasonable suspicion of criminal activity before employing their canine partners in sniff searches.
In a 5-1 ruling Thursday, the Supreme Court reversed a St. Paul man's gun conviction after police used a dog to search a rented storage facility and used the dog's reaction to obtain a search warrant for a locker where guns were found.
The impact of the decision could be limited, though because reasonable suspicion isn't as stringent as probable cause -- the standard for obtaining a search warrant.
The state public defender's office, which represented defendant Andre Carter, said the decision helps define search parameters that protect civil rights.
"It makes it clear that the police use of drug dogs is an invasion of privacy unless there is some reason, at least reasonable suspicion, someone is involved in criminal activity," said Assistant State Public Defender Marie Wolf. "There are a lot of factual scenarios that could be very troubling to the average citizen -- a police officer taking a drug dog and walking the sidewalk and seeing at what house it alerts."
St. Paul police spokesman Paul Schnell said officers would alter their practices in response to the ruling.
"It's always disappointing to lose those tools, but I don't see it being onerous," Schnell said. "Investigators understand the legal standard has been set and extended. They will become more vigilant about getting the evidence necessary and making good cases."
This isn't the first time the high court has delved into the search practices of police dogs. Three years ago, the state Supreme Court ruled that an officer needed reasonable suspicion to have a police dog sniff around the exterior of a car, setting a higher standard than a U.S. Supreme Court ruling.
Carter, 29, was convicted in April 2003 for illegal possession of a firearm and is serving a five-year prison term. He will receive a new trial. Police found two guns and ammunition when they had a dog sniff for drugs outside the rented storage unit.
FAIR USE NOTICE: This page contains copyrighted material the use of which has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. NoNonsense English offers this material non-commercially for research and educational purposes. I believe this constitutes a fair use of any such copyrighted material as provided for in 17 U.S.C § 107. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond fair use, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner, i.e. the media service or newspaper which first published the article online and which is indicated at the top of the article unless otherwise specified.