Colorado Supreme Court People v. Esparza 11SA234

Decision here.

   This case involves two separate incidents.

   In the first, Esparza was stopped for a traffic violation.  The officer discovered that her license was suspended and arrested her.  At her request (and in compliance with department policy), her truck was left parked where it was.  Another officer brought a drug detection dog to the truck, and it alerted.  Police searched the truck and found a pipe with a testable amount of meth residue.

   In the second incident, the same officer who had arrested Esparza the first time saw that she was driving again.  She made it to a motel parking lot, where he contacted her (no other traffic violation was mentioned for this incident).  After confirming that her license was still suspended, he arrested her.  Once again, she requested that her truck be left parked where it was.  Once again, her request was granted, and a dog was brought to the scene.  The dog alerted, the truck was searched, a meth pipe with residue was found inside.

   Relying on previous supreme court cases (including People v. Haley and People v. Unruh), the trial court suppressed the drug evidence because the dog sniffs were conducted without first establishing reasonable suspicion beyond the traffic charges.  The people filed an interlocutory appeal.

   The Colorado Supreme Court overturned some of its previous decisions, and held that although the Colorado Constitution does sometimes afford greater protection against search and seizure than the Federal Constitution, K9 sniffs are no longer one of those cases: "To the extent that we had previously suggested otherwise, we now reject the broad proposition that government conduct permitting a trained narcotics detection dog to sniff outside a closed container, in and of itself,  infringes  upon reasonable privacy interests in the contents of that container, thereby constituting a search within the meaning of article II, section 7."  In other words, a K9 sniff does not require PC or RS as long as the dog is trained to only alert on contraband.  The reasoning for this decision is the same as the reasoning in Federal case law: people do not have a legitimate privacy interest in something they do not have a right to possess.

   Of course, it's important to note that a suspicionless K9 sniff that prolongs an otherwise lawful detention would still violate both the Colorado Constitution and the Federal Constitution.