United States v. David Sharp
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 15511
6th Cir.2012Background
- Sharp was convicted of possession with intent to distribute 50+ grams of methamphetamine and sentenced to 360 months.
- Police seized 154 grams of meth, 10.5 grams of marijuana and paraphernalia from a shaving kit on the passenger seat after a narcotics dog jumped into the car and alerted.
- At scene, the dog began exterior sniffing with the handler commanding a search; the dog jumped through the open driver’s window and searched interior areas before alerting on the shaving kit.
- Sharp moved to suppress on two grounds: pre-search physical search of the car and the dog’s sniff; the magistrate judge denied these challenges, and the district court adopted that recommendation.
- Sharp did not object to the magistrate judge’s conclusions about the dog’s conduct; he appealed the denial arguing that the jump and sniff violated the Fourth Amendment.
- The appellate court affirmed, holding that a trained canine’s instinctive jump into a car after smelling drugs does not violate the Fourth Amendment so long as police did not encourage or facilitate the jump.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Sharp waived or forfeited review of the dog sniff. | Sharp argued forfeiture; waiver analysis unnecessary for result. | US contends waiver; Sharp forfeited by not objecting to dog issue. | Not dispositive; de novo review shows no Fourth Amendment violation. |
| Whether the dog’s jump and sniff inside the car violated the Fourth Amendment. | Dog’s jump into the car was enabled by police training and thus unlawful. | Instinctive, unincited jump; no police misconduct; not a search. | Not a search; dog’s instinctive jump inside car compliant with Fourth Amendment so long as not facilitated by police. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Reed, 141 F.3d 644 (6th Cir. 1998) (canine sniff not a search if lawfully present at scene)
- United States v. Diaz, 25 F.3d 392 (6th Cir. 1994) (dog alert can establish probable cause to search)
- United States v. Bowman, 634 F.3d 357 (6th Cir. 2011) (addresses review standard and sniff legality)
- United States v. Stone, 866 F.2d 359 (10th Cir. 1989) (instinctive canine actions not violations absent police misconduct)
- United States v. Lyons, 486 F.3d 367 (8th Cir. 2007) (no obligation to close windows when dog sniffs interior)
- United States v. Pierce, 622 F.3d 209 (3d Cir. 2010) (instinctive jump into car not a violation if not aided by police)
- United States v. Vazquez, 555 F.3d 923 (10th Cir. 2009) (dog’s jump into a car not a violation if not orchestrated by police)
- United States v. Winningham, 140 F.3d 1328 (10th Cir. 1998) (interior sniffing can be lawful if not facilitated by officers)