holding that a positive canine alert on a vehicle, without any other indicia of possession of contraband specifically related to the passenger, is insufficient to establish probable cause to search a non-owner, non-driver of the vehicle
How later courts described this case
- holding that a positive canine alert on a vehicle, without any other indicia of possession of contraband specifically related to the passenger, is insufficient to establish probable cause to search a non-owner, non-driver of the vehicle
- noting that “a canine sniff, in and of itself, is not a search for purpose of the Fourth Amendment”
- noting that “canine sniff” of the vehicle “provided the police officers with probable cause to search the car,” but concluding that a canine alert on the exterior of a vehicle does not provide probable cause to search a particular occupant of that vehicle
- stating that the law is settled that a positive canine scan for the presence of contraband provides probable cause for a search and seizure
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
HARRELL and BATTAGLIA, JJ.
dissent.
Dissenting Opinion by HARRELL, J., in which BATTAGLIA, J., joins
Consonant with my association with the dissent in Pringle v. State, 370 Md. 525, 556-66 , 805 A.2d 1016, 1033-40 (2002), I respectfully dissent in the present case. Although Pringle presaged the result in this case, I cling to a view that both it and this case are decided wrongly. In this case, I would adopt the reasoning of United States v. Klinginsmith, 25 F.3d 1507 (10th Circ.1994), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 1059 , 115 S.Ct. 669 , 130 L.Ed.2d 602 (1994) and United States v. Garcia, 52 F.Supp.2d 1239 (D.Kan.1999) and reverse the Court of Special Appeals.
Judge BATTAGLIA authorizes me to state that she joins this dissent.