Abstract
After waiting for occupants to leave their home, an officer approached the front door and garage with a drug-detection dog, which alerted the officer to the presence of contraband. Surprisingly, in State v. Guillen, Division Two of the Arizona Court of Appeals, with one dissenting judge, held that this evidence-gathering activity was not a search under the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Because article II, section 8 of the Arizona Constitution provides greater privacy protection in the home than the Fourth Amendment, the court held that the state constitution requires an officer to have reasonable suspicion of criminal activity before approaching a home to conduct a dog sniff. Despite summarily concluding that its holding is in accord with the majority of federal and state courts, the court radically departs from other jurisdictions by not limiting its holding by the lawfulness of the officer's intent to be on the property and by the reasonable expectation of privacy in the curtilage immediately outside the home.
How to Cite
51 Ariz. L. Rev. 1097 (2009)
2
Views
1
Downloads