Introduction

Drug dogs are specially trained dogs that law enforcers use to detect narcotics. Drug dogs are very effective as their sense of smell is very strong (Gill 2011). This enables them to detect drugs that are kept well hidden by drug traffickers. Although the use of drug dogs makes police work easy, many people are opposed to the use of drug dogs because they believe that it leads to the violation of the right to privacy. The fourth amendment states that “the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized (Smith, 2008, p.4).”

Political implications

There are “three major players” that are in conflict about the use of sniffer dogs. These are police officers, possible suspects and the courts who adjudicate hether police officers have violated the fourth amendment right of suspected criminals. The main issue of conflict is whether an alert given by a sniffer dog is enough to let an officer search a person. According to the Police Patrol (2013), police officers use an alert given by their sniffer dogs as a probable cause for a search. People against the use of drugs argue that police officers violate their right to the fourth amendment when they use a sniffer dogs’ alert as a probable cause for a search. A police officer mainly requires a search warrant in order to search a suspected offender.

Economic implications

There are certain economic implications that emerge as a result of the use of sniffer dogs. There are certain players who make financial losses while others benefit from the use of the sniffer dogs. Those who lose financially are the drug suspects while the government seems to gain from the use of sniffer dogs. Suspected drug traffickers caught by police officers using ug dogs end up losing their merchandize which gets confiscated by the police. These suspected criminals also end up paying huge amounts of money as payment of legal fees to lawyers who represent them in court. The police incur low budgetary costs of maintaining sniffer dogs. This makes them cost effective.

Legal implications

In the case of Florida v. Harris, the judges argued that alert from a reliable sniffer dog that is specially trained is a probable cause to search a vehicle that has been lawfully stopped for suspicion of carrying narcotics. During this case, the Supreme Court judges argued that the sniffer dog Aldo was reliable in detecting drugs and the police had therefore a probable cause to search Harris’s car (Freeman 2013). According to the Annenberg Classroom (2013) in a case between Florida and Jardines, bringing a sniffer dog in a residential place to sniff for drugs is constitutionally referred to as a search. The police officer in charge of the sniffer dog is therefore required by the constitution to have a search warrant (Ross 2013). In case the officer does not have the warrant, then this is termed as unlawful. The case of Illinois v. Cabellos was instrumental in the determination of what grounds a police officer should use to stop a vehicle and use a sniffer dog to detect drugs. The judges argued that it is only at a lawful traffic point that a sniffer dog can be used to sniff out drugs.

Conclusion

Drug dogs are important in the detection of narcotics that criminals keep well hidden. It is through the sniff dogs that the police have arrested many drug traffickers. This has helped curb the vice in the community. The police should however be careful as to how they use the sniff dogs on suspects. The police should work within the boundaries of the constitution and should not violate people’s rights when they use sniffer dogs.

References

Annenberg Classroom. (2013). When does use of a drug-sniffing dog violate the Fourth Amendment? Retrieved on 1^st September 2013. Retrieved from http://www.annenbergclassroom.org/speakouts.aspx?name=when-does-use-of-a-drug-sniffing-dog-violate-the-fourth-amendment&AspxAutoDetectCookieSupport=1

Freeman, C. G. (2013). Supreme court cases of interest. Criminal Justice, 28(1), 46-49. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/1353616933?accountid=458

Gill, R. (2011, Jan 30). Sniffer dogs. Global News Transcripts. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/848806049?accountid=458

dogs-drugs-and-the-fourth-amendment.aspx

Ross, B. (2013, Jan 07). SUPREME COURT WATCH. Junior Scholastic, 115, 8-11. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/1268159068?accountid=458

Smith, R. (2008). Fourth Amendment: The right to privacy. Edina, MN: ABDO Pub. Co.