When police in Hamilton County stopped Danielle Barton for an alleged traffic violation a couple of years ago; she invoked her Fourth Amendment Constitutional rights against unreasonable search and seizure, and refused to allow them to search her vehicle.
But, that didn’t stop one of their K-9 police officers from poking his little nose inside and sniffing out drugs, which her attorneys are telling the Ohio Supreme Court, well…you might say; violated her doggone rights!
In fact, Ms. Barton’s dogged determination to get justice after her arrest based on the dog’s trusty sniffer, is now being championed as well, by the American Civil Liberties Union, (ACLU) and the ACLU of Ohio.
They have filed an amicus “friend of the court” brief, seeking to answer the question of whether a police canine’s physical intrusion into a private vehicle during the course of a vehicle sniff violates an Ohioan’s Fourth Amendment rights, when officers lack probable cause, consent, or a warrant.
According to a release from the ACLU, the case unfolded like this:
“After being placed under arrest, Ms. Barton filed a motion to suppress evidence found in her vehicle, stating that the dog’s intrusion into her vehicle was an unconstitutional search in violation of the Fourth Amendment. The trial court denied the motion, reasoning that the canine’s actions were “instinctive” and therefore, outside the protections of the Fourth Amendment. The First District Court of Appeals affirmed.
The amici brief urges the Supreme Court of Ohio to reverse the decision of the First District Court of Appeals on the grounds that the warrantless intrusion of a canine without probable cause violated Ms. Barton’s constitutional rights. Drug sniffing canines are instruments of law enforcement used to carry out an officer’s duties. Therefore, their actions are an extension of their handling officer. A physical intrusion of a K-9 into a private vehicle must be treated the same as an action completed by law enforcement, regardless of whether the canine acts “instinctively.”
“It is abundantly clear that this incident violates Ms. Barton’s right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures under the Fourth Amendment,” said Amy Gilbert, Senior Staff Attorney at ACLU of Ohio. “Law enforcement neither possessed a warrant nor had probable cause to search the interior of the vehicle – whether by themselves or by canine sniff. The records from the incident exemplify just that.”
“Canines are well trained and highly skilled instruments used by law enforcement for investigative purposes,” added Julian Clark, Staff Attorney for ACLU Criminal Law Reform Project. “The refusal to view their intrusions into vehicles as a search that is subject to the proscriptions of the Fourth Amendment erodes Ohioans constitutional protections from unreasonable government interference. It is imperative that the Court consider the implications of upholding the First District’s decision.”
The organizations urge the Supreme Court of Ohio to reverse the decision by the First District Court of Appeals.
