ACLU of Ohio and National ACLU File Amicus Brief, Raising Fourth Amendment Violation Concerns Regarding Police Drug Sniffing Canines

Columbus, OH – Yesterday, the American Civil Liberties Union and the ACLU of Ohio filed a brief as amici curiae in the Supreme Court of Ohio in support of Danielle Barton in State v. Barton, a case that presents the question of whether a police canine’s physical intrusion into a private vehicle during the course of a vehicle sniff violates Ohioan’s Fourth Amendment rights, when officers lack probable cause, consent, or a warrant.

In November 2023, Danielle Barton was stopped by law enforcement for a traffic violation for the improper display of a license plate. After asking Ms. Barton to step out of her vehicle to show her the traffic violation, a K-9 unit arrived as back-up at the scene. Ms. Barton declined to allow officers to search her vehicle. Nevertheless, officers still conducted a canine sniff around the car, during which the canine placed its head into the driver’s-side window and alerted – indicating the presence of narcotics.

After being placed under arrest, Ms. Barton filed a motion to suppress evidence found in her vehicle, stating that the dog’s intrusion into her vehicle was an unconstitutional search in violation of the Fourth Amendment. The trial court denied the motion, reasoning that the canine's actions were “instinctive” and therefore, outside the protections of the Fourth Amendment. The First District Court of Appeals affirmed.

The amici brief urges the Supreme Court of Ohio to reverse the decision of the First District Court of Appeals on the grounds that the warrantless intrusion of a canine without probable cause violated Ms. Barton’s constitutional rights. Drug sniffing canines are instruments of law enforcement used to carry out an officer’s duties. Therefore, their actions are an extension of their handling officer. A physical intrusion of a K-9 into a private vehicle must be treated the same as an action completed by law enforcement, regardless of whether the canine acts “instinctively.”

“It is abundantly clear that this incident violates Ms. Barton’s right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures under the Fourth Amendment,” said Amy Gilbert, Senior Staff Attorney at ACLU of Ohio. “Law enforcement neither possessed a warrant nor had probable cause to search the interior of the vehicle – whether by themselves or by canine sniff. The records from the incident exemplify just that.”

“Canines are well trained and highly skilled instruments used by law enforcement for investigative purposes,” added Julian Clark, Staff Attorney for ACLU Criminal Law Reform Project. “The refusal to view their intrusions into vehicles as a search that is subject to the proscriptions of the Fourth Amendment erodes Ohioans constitutional protections from unreasonable government interference. It is imperative that the Court consider the implications of upholding the First District’s decision.”

The organizations urge the Supreme Court of Ohio to reverse the decision by the First District Court of Appeals.