This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.
Facts
On January 24, 1992, a sheriff's deputy stopped the Defendant, who was driving a vehicle despite having a suspended license. During the stop, the deputy observed items in the vehicle, including a cellular phone and an empty box for sandwich bags. After arresting the Defendant for driving with a suspended license, officers conducted an inventory search of the vehicle, during which a drug-sniffing dog, Sparky, alerted to the presence of narcotics. A subsequent search revealed cocaine in the vehicle (paras 2-7).
Procedural History
- District Court, January 24, 1992: Suppressed the physical evidence obtained from the vehicle search, finding the use of the drug-sniffing dog during the inventory search was not in accordance with standard police procedures (headnotes, paras 10-12).
Parties' Submissions
- State (Plaintiff-Appellant): Argued that the use of the drug-sniffing dog during the inventory search was reasonable and did not prolong the search. Additionally, the State contended that the dog's alert provided probable cause for the warrantless search (paras 9-10).
- Defendant (Defendant-Appellee): Challenged the legality of the search, focusing on the use of the drug-sniffing dog, which was not part of standard inventory procedures. The Defendant did not contest the initial stop, arrest, or impoundment of the vehicle (paras 8-9).
Legal Issues
- Was the use of a drug-sniffing dog during the inventory search of the Defendant's vehicle lawful under the inventory-search exception to the warrant requirement?
- Did the officers have probable cause to conduct a warrantless search of the vehicle based on the dog's alert?
Disposition
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's decision to suppress the evidence obtained from the vehicle search (para 13).
Reasons
Per Hartz J. (Minzner C.J. and Alarid J. concurring):
The Court found that the use of the drug-sniffing dog, Sparky, during the inventory search was not in accordance with established police procedures, as required under the inventory-search exception to the warrant requirement. The State failed to demonstrate that the use of the dog was part of a routine inventory procedure. Consequently, the search could not be justified under this exception (para 10).
The Court also rejected the State's argument, raised for the first time on appeal, that the dog's instinctive entry into the vehicle did not constitute a search. The Court noted that this argument was not presented in the district court, and the factual record was insufficient to evaluate it. The Court emphasized that entry into a vehicle's trunk, even if open, is an intrusion governed by Fourth Amendment protections (paras 11-12).
The Court concluded that the evidence obtained from the search was properly suppressed due to the lack of compliance with constitutional requirements (para 13).