You are here: / / A CANINE SNIFF FOR DRUGS IS A SEARCH; ALTHOUGH THE APPELLATE DIVISION HAD...
, , ,

A CANINE SNIFF FOR DRUGS IS A SEARCH; ALTHOUGH THE APPELLATE DIVISION HAD ALSO RULED THE CANINE SNIFF WAS A SEARCH, THE APPELLATE DIVISION WENT ON TO APPLY THE “REASONABLE SUSPICION” STANDARD AND FOUND THAT STANDARD HAD BEEN MET BY THE FACTS; THE COURT OF APPEALS DETERMINED THE APPELLATE DIVISION DID NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO RULE ADVERSELY TO THE DEFENDANT ON THE STANDARD BECAUSE COUNTY COURT HAD NOT RULED ON THAT ISSUE (COUNTY COURT HELD THE SNIFF WAS NOT A SEARCH); THE MATTER WAS SENT BACK TO COUNTY COURT FOR RULINGS ON THE STANDARD FOR A SNIFF SEARCH (CT APP). ​

The Court of Appeals, in a comprehensive opinion by Judge Cannataro, determined that a canine sniff of a person to detect drugs is a search. The Fourth Department had reversed County Court and held that the canine sniff constituted a search. But the Fourth Department went on to apply the “reasonable suspicion” standard to whether the search was justified and found that standard had been met by the facts. Because County Count had not ruled on the correct standard for a sniff-search (County Court held the sniff was not a search), the Fourth Department did not have the authority rule against the defendant on that issue. The matter was sent back to County Court for rulings on what the correct standard is and whether that standard was met by the events preceding the sniff-search in this case:

… [W]e conclude that the canine sniff of defendant’s person qualified as a search under the Fourth Amendment. * * *

The second question presented by this appeal is whether the Appellate Division could decide that a canine sniff search of a person requires reasonable suspicion and was justified in this case. We conclude that the Appellate Division lacked jurisdiction to resolve those issues because County Court did not decide them adversely to defendant (see LaFontaine, 92 NY2d at 473-474). * * *

County Court held that the canine sniff of defendant’s person did not qualify as a search. The court did not decide the standard that would govern if the canine sniff did so qualify, much less whether that standard was met. Those questions present “separate” and “analytically distinct” issues from the threshold question of whether the sniff implicated constitutional protections or prohibitions … . The Appellate Division therefore erred in deciding those questions adversely to defendant…. . People v Butler, 2023 NY Slip Op 06468, CtApp 12-19-23

Practice Point: A canine sniff for drugs on a person is a search. The correct standard justifying such a search has not been determined.

Practice Point: If an issue has not been addressed by the lower court, the appellate court is powerless to rule adversely to the defendant on that issue. Here County Court had held that a canine sniff is not a search and therefore never ruled on the correct standard for such a search. The Appellate Division (which reversed County Court on whether the sniff is a search) could not decide what the correct standard for the search was and then rule that the standard had been met, because that ruling was adverse to the defendant. The matter was sent back to the County Court for a ruling.

 

You might also like
BAIL BONDSMAN IS NOT ENTITLED TO KEEP THE PREMIUM POSTED TO UNDERWRITE A BAIL BOND IF BAIL IS SUBSEQUENTLY DISAPPROVED AND THE ARRESTEE IS NOT RELEASED.
‘RELIABLE HEARSAY’ IN A PRESENTENCE INVESTIGATION (PSI) REPORT IS A SUFFICIENT BASIS FOR A FINDING DEFENDANT USED VIOLENCE IN THE COMMISSION OF A SEX OFFENSE; LEVEL TWO RISK ASSESSMENT UPHELD (CT APP).
EXPANDABLE, METAL BATON IS A “BILLY” WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE PENAL LAW.
TRUSTEE’S BREACH OF CONTRACT ACTION IN THIS RESIDENTIAL MORTGAGE BACKED SECURITIES CASE WAS TIME-BARRED, THE ACTION COULD NOT RELATE BACK PURSUANT TO CPLR 203 BECAUSE THE TIMELY ACTION BY ANOTHER PARTY WAS PRECLUDED BY THE CONTRACT, THE COURT OF APPEALS COULD NOT CONSIDER WHETHER THE ACTION WAS TIMELY PURSUANT TO CPLR 205, EVEN THOUGH THE ISSUE WAS ADDRESSED BY THE APPELLATE DIVISION, BECAUSE THE ISSUE WAS NOT FULLY ADDRESSED IN SUPREME COURT (CT APP).
Lab Conducting Blood Tests for Drugs Owed Duty of Care to Plaintiff Whose Blood Was Tested
Albany County Cyberbullying Criminal Statute Overly Broad
Plaintiff, Who Fell Through an Open Manhole, Entitled to Summary Judgment on Labor Law 240 (1) Cause of Action—Failure to Set Up Guard Rails Was a Proximate Cause–Liability Imposed Regardless of Plaintiff’s Own Negligence and Regardless of Whether the Owner, Contractor or Agent Supervised or Controlled the Work
Error to Deny Missing Witness Jury Instruction on Ground Such Testimony Would Be Cumulative—Only Testimony of a Party’s Own Witnesses Can Be Deemed Cumulative, Not, as Here, the Testimony of the Opposing Party’s Witnesses

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

LABOR LAW 240(1) DOES NOT COVER INJURY TO A MECHANIC REPAIRING A VEHICLE, EVEN... THE MOTION TO AMEND THE COMPLAINT TO CORRECT A TYPO SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED...