Madison NORML

A Chicago Tribune article, “Wisconsin Supreme Court: Police dog sniffs OK,” click here, reported this reaction from the defendant’s attorney:

Arias' attorney, Lora B. Cerone, called the decision disheartening and "scary." Officers apparently no longer need justification for searching around cars with their dogs if it's done quickly, she said.

"If they pull you over without a reason, it's illegal. Now, if it's not too long, we're not going to suppress the evidence. That's brand new," she said.

The court probably felt it couldn't let a man caught with drugs go free, she added.

Here is more from the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel:

Supremes again split 4-3
Source: Milwaukee Journal Sentinel blogs click here
By Marie Rohde
Wednesday, Jul 9 2008, 11:23 AM

A 33-year-old Clark County man can be tried on charges of possession of cocaine and a switchblade knife after the Wisconsin Supreme Court ruled Wednesday that a police dog's sniffing outside the car he was a passenger in did not violate his constitutional rights.

The high court was closely divided on the issues raised and the minority opinion suggested that the defense raise issues of probably cause that could exclude the key evidence against the man, Ramon Lopez Arias.

The majority opinion, written by Patience Drake Roggensack, found that a police dog's sniffing of the exterior of a car did not constitute a police search and that the officer did not unreasonably prolong the stop of the car to complete his controlled substance investigation.

The arrest occurred on Aug. 20, 2005 when a police officer was running radar detection near Highway 13 in Clark County. The officer saw Arias leave a grocery store with three 12-packs of beer and enter that he knew belonged to a 17-year-old woman. The officer stopped the vehicle because it's illegal for minors to transport intoxicants.

A police dog was in the squad with the officer. After giving the woman a preliminary breath test and determined she had not consumed alcohol, he had the dog sniff around the exterior of the car. Prosecutors conceded that the officer did not have a reasonable suspicion of drug activity before the dog sniff. The dog sat and barked on the driver's side of the car, an indication of the presence of drugs.

Arias and the car were then searched. A plastic bag containing cocaine was found between the cushions of the front seat, as was the knife.

When other officers arrived, the beer was removed from the car and the underage woman was released. She was issued a citation the next day.

Clark County Circuit Court Judge Jon Counsell suppressed the evidence and the appeals court agreed.

"A dog sniff of the exterior of a vehicle located in a public places does not constitute a search under the Wisconsin Constitution," Roggensack wrote in the majority opinion. "The great weight and clear preponderance of the evidence shows that the dog sniff prolonged the detention (of Arias) by 78 seconds. Under the totality of the circumstances is not an unreasonable incremental intrusion upon Arias' liberty."

Justice Ann Walsh Bradley, who wrote the dissenting opinion, noted that it is politically difficult to suppress evidence when an illegal search results in police finding drugs.

"Judges make those tough calls because of their commitment to the rule of law and adherence to their oath of office," Bradley wrote. "We expect no less of them."

The initial stop of the car was unrelated to a drug investigation, a crucial test, Bradley said. She also noted that when the case returns to circuit court, the issue of whether the officer had probable cause to stop the car should be addressed.

Bradley said the majority decision was in conflict with precedent set by the U.S. Supreme Court.