Canine sniffing drug dogs used to search Attleboro, Massachusetts high school for drugs
Drug-sniffing dogs were used at Attleboro High School to search for drugs in school lockers and in cars driven by students. Six high school lockers were searched and three cars according to the Attleboro Sun Chronicle. The search was not based on any tip or previous intelligence regarding drug activity. No student was charged with any Massachusetts drug crime.
Since the searched revealed no illegal drugs, the legality of the search is likely to go unchallenged. Was this search Constitutional under the Fourth Amendment and Article 14 of the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights? This issue would be at the center of any challenge by a Massachusetts Drug Defense lawyer if charges were brought from a school search. The use of canine to search for drugs at public schools is being used by other school districts.
The United States Supreme Court held in a case called New Jersey v. T.L.O., 469 U.S. 325 (1985), that a search of a student by a teacher is constitutional if there is reasonable grounds for believing the search will uncover evidence of criminal activity or violation of school rules.
The United States Supreme Court and Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court have held that a canine sniff is not a search under the Fourth Amendment or Article 14 because individuals do not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the smell from the place being searched, the smell from a car or locker. The Massachusetts Supreme Court recognized this in a case called Commonwealth v. Feyenard, 445 Mass. 72 (2005) while the United States Supreme Court decision of Illinois v. Cabelles, 543 U.S. 405 (2005) holds that alerts from canine sniffing dogs are Constitutional under the Fourth Amendment.
The issue here is can a canine alert, without any other factors showing that the car or locker contains narcotics, justify a search under the Fourth Amendment or Article 14 of the Massachusetts Constitution, referred to as the Declaration of Rights. The case of Commonwealth v. Pedro Mateo-German, 453 Mass. 838 (2009), would suggest that the police need some other factors showing that there is narcotics in the area where the canine makes a positive alert.
In this case, it appears that the canine made three false positive alerts, calling into question the reliability of the canine or the training of the officer handling the canine. Numerous issues can arise with canine sniffs for drugs. An officer can misinterpret the alert; the handler's actions could cause the canine to make a false positive alert. With cars parked next to each other in a parking lot, there is the possibility that the dog cannot distinguish where the scent came from, causing a false positive alert.
Massachusetts drug cases based on canine alerts often require a motion to suppress challenging the accuracy of the canine and the training of the officer handling the dog.
