Sometimes the Supreme Court gets it right. In this case, the police, although not invited, were on the front porch of the defendant’s house and brought a dog along who was trained to detect drugs. The dog “alerted” to the presence of drugs and the police then used this information to get a search warrant to enter the house.

As any reputable Eureka criminal defense lawyer will explain, simply having the dog present constitutes a search. A drug-sniffing dog is present for no reason other than as a tool for the police to look for drugs. For more information about California drug cases, click here. Fortunately, the Supreme Court decided that using a dog did actually constitute a search. The Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution prevents the government from unreasonable intrusion into your home. This protection stems from pre-Revolutionary War days when British soldiers were allowed to enter anyone’s home without notice or cause.

The Court held that a resident of a home has a right to retreat into their own home and be free of this type of intrusion and the protection that is afford by the Constitution would be of practically no value if the government could come onto your porch, side yard or curtilage (the area immediately around a home) and have a drug dog sniff for drugs. That area is constitutionally protected area and bringing a drug-sniffing dog into that area without implied or actual consent of the resident or other justification is unconstitutional. No one can be reasonably expected to extend a customary invitation to law enforcement to enter their property and explore the area immediately around a home.

In short, the police conducted an illegal search when they brought their drug dog onto the porch. Using that information at a later point in time to try to get a search warrant was too late. They had already broken the law! For more information about California search and seizure issues, click here.