Oregon Law Review : Vol. 88 No. 3, p. 829-904 : Has the Fourth Amendment Gone to the Dogs?: Unreasonable Expansion of Canine Sniff Doctrine to Include Sniffs of the Home
| dc.contributor.author | Lunney, Leslie A. | |
| dc.date.accessioned | 2010-10-18T16:39:05Z | |
| dc.date.available | 2010-10-18T16:39:05Z | |
| dc.date.issued | 2009 | |
| dc.description | 76 p. | en_US |
| dc.description.abstract | Despite the visceral offensiveness of potential dragnet or selective police investigations involving the home, all lower federal courts that have considered the issue, aside from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, have concluded that a canine sniff of a private home is not a “search” under the Fourth Amendment. Therefore, no warrant, or even suspicion, is required to perform the canine sniff. This Article challenges the legitimacy of that conclusion and argues that a canine sniff of a private residence—a location that is afforded stringent Fourth Amendment protection—is a “search” within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment. | en_US |
| dc.identifier.issn | 0196-2043 | |
| dc.identifier.uri | https://hdl.handle.net/1794/10807 | |
| dc.language.iso | en_US | en_US |
| dc.publisher | University of Oregon Law School | en_US |
| dc.title | Oregon Law Review : Vol. 88 No. 3, p. 829-904 : Has the Fourth Amendment Gone to the Dogs?: Unreasonable Expansion of Canine Sniff Doctrine to Include Sniffs of the Home | en_US |
| dc.title.alternative | Has the Fourth Amendment Gone to the Dogs?: Unreasonable Expansion of Canine Sniff Doctrine to Include Sniffs of the Home | en_US |
| dc.type | Article | en_US |