Letter to the Editor: Sniff, sniff!

There doesn’t appear to be any valid reason why commentary and discussion can not occur over decisions of the Iowa Supreme Court. Probably very few people other than the bar read Supreme Court decisions even though these decisions actually affect the citizens of Iowa more directly than just about any other reading matter that one can come into possession of. As an example, a recent decision of the Iowa Supreme, State v, Bauler, once again rules that a dog sniff is not a search.

Most of the local citizenry probably does not realize that the policy of the Newton Police Department is that they can perform a dog sniff on your vehicle once your vehicle is stopped for any traffic violation as long as the stop is not unnecessarily prolonged. Considering the prevalence of illegal substances in the citizenry as a whole, it really should be something that is better publicized. I am quite sure that you, the reader, have not been aware of this unless the police dog is brought to the location of your own street detention and worked around your car while you are receiving your ticket from the officer who stopped you.

Dog sniffs aren’t searches according to the U. S. Supreme Court and the Iowa Supreme Court and therefore are not subject to the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution or Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution of the State of Iowa which protect a citizen from unreasonable searches and seizures. This is one of the anomalies that so befuddle us lawyers. In effect, a dog searching for the smell of illegal narcotics located in your car, being led around your car, is not a search. The courts try to convince us by whatever terminology they currently use, that a search is not a search. Interesting isn’t it when a search is not a search. It is not a search because the courts say it is not a search: there you have it.

The courts have gone to great lengths to convince not only us, but themselves that a dog sniff is not a search: many opinions have been written justifying this position. Once a dog sniffs something illegal, then the officers have probable cause to search not only the car but you. Funny how that works. What these rulings mean, in effect, is any time you are in your vehicle and stopped for whatever reason, you and your passengers and the car you are in can be searched by a dog first, and then by humans second if the dog indicates his sniffing is positive for an illegal substance.

If a drug dog is brought into your house while they search for drugs and the dog shows the officers where the drugs are, that is part of a search. If a drug dog is at the airport sniffing passengers’ suitcases, that is a search. If a dog is used to track you down in the woods, that is a search. But, searching for smells emanating from your car is not a search they say.

Another interesting fact is that under normal circumstances, only the dog’s handler will know that the dog “hit” on your car. They have gone to sniff school together; they are a team. It is difficult to convince someone, like a judge, that the dog’s handler will always say that the dog hit on the car once they find anything in the subsequent search.

It boils down to the fact that you really don’t have any privacy rights while in your car. You don’t need search warrants for people’s houses if all you have to do is follow people around in their cars until they commit some traffic violation: no turn signal, crossing the center line, five miles over the speed limit, defective equipment etc., etc. It’s easy to forget that pot pipe in your pocket when late for work. The courts allow this sort of intrusion into our lives often with the result of jail, bond, court, fines, etc.

Because driving has been criminalized (you can’t drive without committing a crime), a citizen doesn’t have a right to privacy while out on the road. I’m sure the courts and prosecutors have written volumes contrary wise and will continue to do so especially when they see a writing such as this willing to actually call a search a search. But, you know, if your native language is English, a search is a search is a search.

Richard E. H. Phelps II

Mingo