You are here: / / A CANINE SNIFF OF A PERSON IS A SEARCH AND REQUIRES PROBABLE CAUSE TO BELIEVE...
,

A CANINE SNIFF OF A PERSON IS A SEARCH AND REQUIRES PROBABLE CAUSE TO BELIEVE THE SUBJECT HAS COMMITTED A CRIME, THEREBY TRIGGERING THE NECESSITY FOR A SEARCH WARRANT OR AN EXCEPTION TO THE WARRANT REQUIREMENT (THIRD DEPT). ​

The Third Department, reversing County Court and remitting the matter, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Ceresia, determined probable cause to believe a crime has been committed is the proper standard for a canine sniff of a person. Here defendant was asked to step out of his vehicle. The canine put his nose in defendant’s groin/buttocks area and alerted for the presence of narcotics:

… [A] canine sniff of the body is far more intrusive than that of a vehicle exterior or common hallway, and an individual has a correspondingly greater expectation of privacy in one’s own body than in those settings. Indeed, when it comes to canine sniff searches, it would be difficult to imagine one more intrusive or involving a more significant privacy right than the one at issue here. Accordingly, we conclude that the serious “intrusion on personal privacy, security, and dignity” that accompanies a canine sniff of the body can only be justified at DeBour level 4 — namely, upon probable cause to believe that the target of the sniff search has committed a crime … .

… [G]iven the fact that County Court only evaluated the evidence under the lesser standard of reasonable suspicion, we are constrained to remit this case to that court for a determination of whether the police had probable cause to perform the canine sniff search of defendant’s body …thereby triggering the necessity of either a search warrant or an exception to the warrant requirement … .  People v Butler, 2025 NY Slip Op 04052, Third Dept 7-3-25

Practice Point: It is hard to believe the law on this topic is just now being settled. A canine sniff of a person is a search requiring probable cause to believe the subject has committed a crime, thereby triggering the necessity for a search warrant or an exception to the warrant requirement.

 

You might also like
THE PROOF OF PLAINTIFF’S CLAIM FOR LOST EARNINGS WAS INSUFFICIENT AS A MATTER OF LAW, DEFENDANT INSURER’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS NO-FAULT CASE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED 3RD DEPT.
COMPLAINT STATED NEGLIGENCE CAUSES OF ACTION AGAINST THE TOWN, A SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PLAINTIFFS AND THE TOWN WAS SUFFICIENTLY ALLEGED, AND IT WAS SUFFICIENTLY ALLEGED THAT GOVERNMENTAL IMMUNITY DID NOT APPLY BECAUSE THE TOWN ENGINEER DID NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY OR DISCRETION TO ACT AS HE DID (THIRD DEPT).
CLAIMANT’S BEHAVIOR, ALLEGED TO HAVE CONSTITUTED HARASSMENT AND INSUBORDINATION, DID NOT RISE TO THE LEVEL OF DISQUALIFYING MISCONDUCT, CLAIMANT WAS ENTITLED TO UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE BENEFITS (THIRD DEPT).
PLAINTIFF, WHO IS FIVE FOOT SEVEN, WAS INJURED WHEN A SIX FOOT HIGH STACK OF SCAFFOLDS PARTIALLY FELL ON HIM, THE HEIGHT DIFFERENTIAL WAS DEEMED DE MINIMUS, DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS LABOR LAW 240 (1) ACTION WAS PROPERLY GRANTED (THIRD DEPT).
THE AFFIDAVIT FROM PLAINTIFF’S ACCIDENT RECONSTRUCTION EXPERT WAS ESSENTIALLY THE SOLE BASIS FOR PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS BICYCLE-CAR ACCIDENT CASE; THE AFFIDAVIT, FOR SEVERAL REASONS, DID NOT RISE TO THE LEVEL OF PROOF REQUIRED TO WARRANT SUMMARY JUDGMENT (THIRD DEPT).
Teacher at a Community College Entitled to Unemployment Insurance Benefits—Teacher Was Offered Employment in the Next School Year But the Hours Were Drastically Reduced—Therefore the Teacher Did Not Receive “Reasonable Assurance of Continued Employment” within the Meaning of Labor Law 590(10)
DEFENSE COUNSEL INEFFECTIVE FOR FAILING TO MOVE TO DISMISS THE ACCUSATORY INSTRUMENTS ON SPEEDY TRIAL GROUNDS, CONVICTIONS REVERSED (THIRD DEPT).
LEAD POISONING, STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS RUNS FROM WHEN THE SYMPTOMS ARE FIRST DISCOVERED, NOT WHEN THE CAUSE OF THE SYMPTOMS IS LEARNED.

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

THE RECORD DOES NOT SUPPORT THE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION BOARD’S CONCLUSION... THE FOSTER CARE AGENCY DID NOT PROVE IT MADE DILIGENT EFFORTS TO ENCOURAGE AND...