Dog's bad nose prompts judge to toss drug case

Herald Tribune ^

[Chet 99]

Dog's bad nose prompts judge to toss drug case

By Todd Ruger

Published: Wednesday, November 19, 2008 at 1:32 p.m. Last Modified: Wednesday, November 19, 2008 at 1:35 p.m.

MANATEE COUNTY — Another circuit judge threw out evidence in a drug possession case, ruling that a narcotics-sniffing dog’s nose was not reliable enough to justify searching a vehicle.

Matthew McNeal is the second Manatee County defendant to escape drug possession charges this year because Talon, a now-retired K-9 from the Palmetto Police Department, alerted to the odor of drugs in a car and officers used that to search it.

Defense attorneys have shown Talon alerted that there were drugs in almost every vehicle he checked, yet officers found drugs fewer than half the time.

That track record means Talon’s nose was not accurate enough to justify a search McNeal’s car, Circuit Judge Diana Moreland wrote in a ruling issued Nov. 12.

Prosecutors have no case without being able to show a jury the oxycodone and methadone that officers say they eventually found in McNeal’s glove compartment. They are appealing Moreland’s ruling.

McNeal’s attorney, Gregory Hagopian of Bradenton, said Talon is not trained to tell the difference between the actual odor of marijuana and the residual odor, which could hang around for months.

“You can’t be searching people for something that was in there four months ago,” Hagopian said. “This dog is going to hit on almost every car and every citizen could be yanked out of their car and have it searched.”

The sniffing abilities of dogs like Talon are becoming the focus of drug cases in Sarasota and Manatee counties. Defense attorneys say the dogs are not accurate enough at finding drug caches to justify police searches.

Challenging those searches is the best way to beat a drug possession or drug trafficking charge. If defense attorneys can show a dog has a spotty track record, they can have the evidence against their clients thrown out of court.

[DieHard the Hunter]

> Can’t wait to read your well thought out reply.
> I’m sure it begins with something like “well, if you have nothing to hide...”...right?

Well... no. On the off-chance that “JBT” means ‘Jack-Booted Thug’ then there is a problem with your analogy.

It would work if there were equivalency between the dog and the JBT. But there isn’t.

The dog has olefactory senses that are many orders of magnitude greater than the JBT. And it is trained to use these senses to detect drugs.

The JBT isn’t, and never can be.

It is reasonable to believe that the dog detects something when it reacts to a scent it interprets to be drugs. In this scenario it is possible that the dog’s senses were *too* well tuned, perhaps in the past picking up on trace scents on vehicles which used to contain drugs, but no longer did.

A JBT, however, would never have reasonable cause to search a car for drugs because it would never be reasonable to believe that he detected the scent of drugs.

Thus your analogy fails the “equivalence” test.