State v. Miller, 367 N.C. 702

Police responded to a burglary alarm at Miller’s home; officers lawfully entered to conduct a protective sweep for intruders after the homeowner gave them a key and consent to search for intruders.
Officer Fox deployed his police dog Jack inside the residence; Jack sat and stared at a dresser drawer, alerting officers to narcotics; officers opened the drawer and found a brick of marijuana (trial court suppressed this item).
Later Jack barked at a hall closet; officers opened the closet and found two large trash bags; officers’ testimony conflicted on whether the marijuana in the bags was visible before Jack nuzzled a bag open or only became visible after Jack’s nuzzling.
Officers secured the house, obtained a warrant based on observed information, then seized the drugs; Miller pled guilty but reserved the right to appeal the trial court’s denial of suppression for the closet marijuana.
The Court of Appeals held Jack was an instrumentality of the police and remanded for suppression if the dog had brought hidden evidence into view; the State sought discretionary review.
The Supreme Court of North Carolina reversed the Court of Appeals, holding that an instinctive, unguided canine action that brings hidden evidence into view is not a Fourth Amendment search, and remanded to resolve whether Jack’s nuzzling was instinctive and unguided.

Issue	State's Argument	Miller's Argument	Held
Whether a police dog is an instrumentality whose actions are equivalent to an officer’s for Fourth Amendment search analysis	Jack was an instrumentality of the police; dog actions, instinctive or not, are no different than officer actions	A dog’s instinctive, unguided actions are not state-directed searches; such acts should not be treated like officer-conducted searches	Reversed Court of Appeals: a dog in a police role is a state actor, but an instinctive, unguided canine action that reveals hidden evidence is not a Fourth Amendment search
Whether the marijuana in the closet must be suppressed where testimony conflicted about whether Jack brought it into view	If Jack’s nuzzling brought hidden contraband into view, that would be analogous to an officer action that exposed concealed areas and could require suppression	If Jack acted instinctively and without handler direction, his nuzzling is not a search and the evidence need not be suppressed	Remanded to trial court to make findings whether Jack’s nuzzling was instinctive, unguided, and undirected; suppress only if facts show otherwise

United States v. Place, 462 U.S. 696 (dog sniff of luggage in public is not a search)
City of Indianapolis v. Edmond, 531 U.S. 32 (exterior dog sniff at checkpoint is not a search)
Illinois v. Caballes, 543 U.S. 405 (dog sniff during lawful traffic stop that reveals only contraband is not a search)
Florida v. Jardines, 569 U.S. 1 (use of a trained dog to investigate home and curtilage is a Fourth Amendment search)
Arizona v. Hicks, 480 U.S. 321 (officer movement of items unrelated to authorized intrusion that exposes hidden portions is a search)
United States v. Jones, 565 U.S. 400 (reintroduction of trespass/property-based test for Fourth Amendment searches)
United States v. Stone, 866 F.2d 359 (10th Cir.) (dog’s instinctive entry into vehicle hatchback did not violate the Fourth Amendment)
United States v. Reed, 141 F.3d 644 (6th Cir.) (dog’s movement of drawers that revealed contraband was not an illegal search where dog acted instinctively)
United States v. Lyons, 957 F.2d 615 (8th Cir.) (dog’s unprompted tearing of package that revealed contraband was not a Fourth Amendment search)
United States v. Sharp, 689 F.3d 616 (6th Cir.) (a dog’s instinctive jump into a car is permissible if not encouraged or placed by handler)