Today, the United States Supreme Court will be hearing oral arguments on two cases involving drug sniffing dogs.  The facts of each case are different but the legal issues are roughly the same.  What are the 4th Amendment limitations on the use of drug sniffing dogs? On December 5, 2006 a “crime stopper” had tipped off the police that marijuana was being grown inside the home of Joelis Jardines’ home near Miami Florida.  Armed with this tip, a police officer went to the door of the residence with a trained drug sniffing Labrador Retriever named Franky.  Franky sniffed the door and sat down, continuing to sniff the bottom of the door.  The dog had been trained to give that sign if it smelled marijuana.  The police then obtained a search warrant of Jardines’s home and entered to find Jardines was growing marijuana plants inside the home and charged him with possession of 25 pounds of marijuana and stealing the electricity used to power the equipment ...

The Cook County State’s Attorney Deferred Prosecution Program is a diversion program for adult felony defendants without a prior felony conviction that have been arrested for non-violent crimes. Participation to the program is at the sole discretion of the State’s attorney.The program placed the defendant into a 12 month intensive  program. Upon completion of the program, the State will then dismiss the case. The Defendant can then file to have the arrest record expunged upon dismissal. In Cook County, due to delays, it takes 6  to 12 months to have the arrest record expunged after the Petition to Expunge is filed.However, only probationable  offences of  Theft, Retail Theft, Forgery, Possession of a Stolen Motor Vehicle, Burglary, Possession  of Burglary Tools, Possession of Cannabis, Possession of a Controlled Substance, and Possession of Methamphetamine are eligible for the program.The  defendant will not be eligible if the case involves Delivery of a Controlled Substance or if t...

On April 21, 2009, we published an article about the Supreme Court’s decision in Arizona v. Gant.  In this case, The Supreme Court severely limited police officers power to search vehicles after an arrest. In Arizona v. Gant, the defendant had been pulled over for a traffic violation.  The police officer determined that he did not have a valid license and placed him under arrest.  The defendant was handcuffed and placed in the back of the police vehicle. The officer then searched the vehicle and discovered a gun and drugs. The Supreme Court ruled that the search of the vehicle was unreasonable and ruled that the evidence seized in the search had to be suppressed. The court held that in order for the police to search the vehicle the defendant had to be close enough to the vehicle as to pose a risk that he could grab a weapon out of the car or that the police had a reasonable belief tha...