01-1993 State v. Miller

Listen to this article

[See, for example, United States v. Place, 462 U.S. 696 (1983) and State v. Garcia, 195 Wis. 2d 68 (Ct. App. 1995)].

“Although Place’s actual holding specifically addressed only sniffs of luggage in an airport, the logic of Place-that dog sniffs reveal only illegal conduct so they intrude on no legitimate privacy interest-would apply equally in any setting. Even if Place’s holding does not extend to dog sniffs of homes or persons, we see no meaningful distinction in this context between dog sniffs of luggage and dog sniffs of unoccupied cars parked on a public street.”

And, where the trained narcotics-detecting dog alerted on the car, that provided sufficient probable cause for the police officer to open the car door and obtain the marijuana from defendant’s purse which was on the driver’s seat.

Judgment affirmed.

Recommended for publication in the official reports.

Dist IV, Iowa County, Dyke, J., Dykman, J.

Attorneys:

For Appellant: Timothy A. Provis, Madison

For Respondent: Erik C. Peterson, Dodgeville; Susan M. Crawford, Madison