holding that the use of a drug detection dog to sniff a person requires that police both be "lawfully in place at the time of the search [and] have probable cause to believe that a canine search of a person will produce contraband or evidence of a crime"
How later courts described this case
- holding that the use of a drug detection dog to sniff a person requires that police both be "lawfully in place at the time of the search [and] have probable cause to believe that a canine search of a person will produce contraband or evidence of a crime"
- explaining that, “although privacy may relate both to property and to one’s person, an invasion of one’s person is, in the usual case, [a] more severe intrusion on one’s privacy interest than an invasion of one’s property”
- holding, inter alia, that Article I, Section 8 authorizes canine sniff search of person only when police have probable cause to believe that such search will produce contraband or evidence of crime
- observing that “the State has a compelling interest to suppress illicit drug traffic”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
*149 PAPADAKOS, Justice,
dissenting.
Since it is clear to me that a satchel is a “thing” and not a “person” and I will not paraphrase the law of realty (that anything attached to realty is realty) so that the sniff law will read that anything attached to the person is person, I join in the dissent authored so ably by Mr. Justice Montemuro.