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
COUNTY IMMUNE FROM SUIT BY STUDENT ASSAULTED BY A WORKER, A LEVEL THREE SEX OFFENDER, WHO WAS REFERRED BY THE COUNTY AS PART OF A WELFARE TO WORK PROGRAM.
BRADY MATERIAL WHICH CONTRADICTED THE PEOPLE’S THEORY OF THE CASE SHOULD HAVE BEEN PROVIDED TO THE DEFENSE, CONVICTION REVERSED (CT APP).
Defendant Entitled to Jury Charge on Extreme Emotional Disturbance Despite Lack of CPL 250.10 Notice
As Long As Work-Related Injury Was A Cause of Death, Death Benefit Must Be Paid—No Apportionment Between Non-Work-Related and Work-Related Causes of Death
WHETHER A JUVENILE’S STATEMENT TO THE POLICE WAS VOLUNTARILY GIVEN PRESENTED A MIXED QUESTION OF LAW AND FACT WHICH IS NOT REVIEWABLE BY THE COURT OF APPEALS, TWO DISSENTERS ARGUED JUVENILES SHOULD NOT BE INTERROGATED OUTSIDE THE PRESENCE OF THEIR ADULT LEGAL GUARDIANS (CT APP).
FAMILY COURT MADE REASONABLE EFFORTS TO REUNITE MOTHER, WHO IS INTELLECTUALLY DISABLED, WITH HER CHILD, WHO WAS REMOVED AFTER A NEGLECT FINDING, THE APPLICABILITY OF REASONABLE ACCOMMODATIONS UNDER THE AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT (ADA) AND THE ADA’S INTERPLAY WITH NEW YORK LAW IN THIS CONTEXT EXPLAINED (CT APP).
DISPUTES INVOLVING COMMERCIAL REAL ESTATE WERE SUFFICIENTLY RELATED TO INTERSTATE COMMERCE TO FALL UNDER THE JURISDICTION OF THE FEDERAL ARBITRATION ACT; PLAINTIFFS’ RESORT TO LITIGATION AND THE RESULTING PREJUDICE TO DEFENDANTS CONSTITUTED A WAIVER OF ARBITRATION.
Misrepresentations About Expunged Drug-Related Offenses on Student’s Law School Admission Application Supported the Rescinding of the Student’s Admission After Completion of Three Semesters

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...