United States v. Place
http://dbpedia.org/resource/United_States_v._Place an entity of type: Thing
United States v. Place, 462 U.S. 696 (1983), was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States in which the Court held, 9–0, that the sniff of one's personal property in a public place by a specially trained police dog was not a "search" under the meaning of the Fourth Amendment. In the case, suspected drug trafficker Raymond Place had his luggage seized at LaGuardia Airport by agents with the Drug Enforcement Administration, which they exposed to a drug-sniffing dog and held onto for several days without a search warrant. Justice Sandra Day O'Connor wrote for the unanimous Court that the sniff of a dog is sui generis, or "uniquely pervasive", and thus police do not need probable cause for their dogs to sniff a person's belongings in a public place. The Court did rule, however, that
rdf:langString
rdf:langString
United States v. Place
rdf:langString
rdf:langString
United States of America v. Raymond J. Place
xsd:integer
1603403
xsd:integer
1120143810
rdf:langString
Burger, White, Powell, Rehnquist, Stevens
<second>
172800.0
<second>
17280.0
xsd:integer
696
xsd:integer
462
xsd:gMonthDay
--03-02
xsd:integer
1983
rdf:langString
United States v. Place,
xsd:gMonthDay
--06-20
xsd:integer
1983
rdf:langString
United States of America v. Raymond J. Place
rdf:langString
A dog sniff is not a "search" within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment.
rdf:langString
United States v. Place
rdf:langString
O'Connor
xsd:integer
1
237
405
xsd:integer
543
568
569
xsd:integer
2005
2013
rdf:langString
United States v. Place, 462 U.S. 696 (1983), was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States in which the Court held, 9–0, that the sniff of one's personal property in a public place by a specially trained police dog was not a "search" under the meaning of the Fourth Amendment. In the case, suspected drug trafficker Raymond Place had his luggage seized at LaGuardia Airport by agents with the Drug Enforcement Administration, which they exposed to a drug-sniffing dog and held onto for several days without a search warrant. Justice Sandra Day O'Connor wrote for the unanimous Court that the sniff of a dog is sui generis, or "uniquely pervasive", and thus police do not need probable cause for their dogs to sniff a person's belongings in a public place. The Court did rule, however, that detaining a person's belongings while waiting for a police dog to arrive did constitute a "seizure" under the Fourth Amendment. The decision was the first case to uphold the constitutionality of police use of drug-sniffing dogs, and the Court would revisit the decision several times in the following decades. In Illinois v. Caballes (2005), the Court held that it did not violate the Fourth Amendment to use a drug-detection dog during a legal traffic stop, as long as it did not unreasonably prolong the duration of it. In 2013, the Court held that the police may not bring a police dog to the front door of a private residence without reasonable suspicion (Florida v. Jardines), but upheld that police dogs are generally accurate enough of the time for evidence gathered from them to stand in court (Florida v. Harris).
rdf:langString
Brennan
rdf:langString
Blackmun
rdf:langString
Marshall
xsd:nonNegativeInteger
14668
