The National Trial Lawyers
  • Home
    • Meet Our Team
    • Contact Us
    • Mission & Goals
    • FAQ
  • Webinars
  • News
  • Membership Directory
    • Top 100 Map – Civil Plaintiff
    • Top 100 Map – Criminal Defense
    • Top 40 Under 40 Map – Civil Plaintiff
    • Top 40 Under 40 Map – Criminal Defense
  • Top 100
    • Civil Plaintiff Officers / Executive Committee
    • Criminal Defense Officers / Executive Committee
    • Benefits
    • About
    • Top 100 President’s Message
    • Diplomat
    • Membership Renewal
    • Member Profile Updates
    • Top 100 Badge
    • Media
  • Top 40
    • Civil Plaintiff Officers / Executive Committee
    • Criminal Defense Officers / Executive Committee
    • Top 40 Under 40 Trial Academy Bootcamp
    • Benefits
    • About
    • Top 40 President’s Message
    • Membership Renewal
    • Member Profile Updates
    • Top 40 Badge
    • Media
  • Specialty Assoc
    • About
    • Shop
    • Officers
    • Membership Renewal
    • Member Profile Updates
    • Media
  • Nominate
    • Top 100
    • Top 40
    • Specialty Association
    • Trial Lawyer Hall of Fame
    • Trial Lawyer of the Year
    • Trial Team of the Year
    • America’s Most Influential Trial Lawyer
    • America’s Most Influential Law Firm
    • Lifetime Achievement Award
  • Shop
  • Magazine
    • A-List
  • Education and Networking Agenda
    • Trial Lawyers Summit
      • Summit Sponsors
    • Top 40 Under 40 Trial Academy Boot Camp
    • Mass Torts Made Perfect
    • The Lanier Master Class 5.0 Trial Academy 2021
    • Webinars
  • Hall of Fame
    • Trial Lawyer Hall of Fame

Drug Conviction Upheld Despite Warrantless Dog Sniff

Posted on April 9, 2015 by Larry Bodine
The Supreme Court ruled that dog sniffs of home are searches while drug dealer whose home was dog sniffed waited for appeal.

The Supreme Court of Wisconsin also upheld the conviction and ruled that the good faith exception to the exclusionary rule applied in the case.

The Supreme Court of Wisconsin upheld a Milwaukee drug dealer’s conviction stemming from the use of a warrantless dog sniff.

The court affirmed that the drug sniff violated the drug dealer’s Fourth Amendment right to be secure from unreasonable searches and seizures. However it also affirmed his drug possession conviction charges because the police officers obtained the warrant in good faith.

Gary M. Scull of Milwaukee was allegedly involved in the distribution of cocaine within the city in 2010, by conducting narcotics trafficking from his vehicle.  A confidential informant, who had previously been involved in cocaine trafficking, gave police information about Scull’s operation, address, vehicle and license plate number, according to the opinion.

Dog sniff results used to obtain warrant

Police confirmed the informant’s information and subsequently performed a dog sniff of the outside of Scull’s home, which detected the presence of a controlled substance.  Based on information provided by the informant and the dog sniff results, the police obtained a search warrant for Scull’s home, according to the opinion.

The search of Scull’s home produced 3.85 grams of crack cocaine, 102.41 grams of marijuana, and paraphernalia such as digital scales and clear plastic baggies. Scull was charged with possession with intent to deliver cocaine and THC, and keeping a drug house. “Scull pled guilty to possession with intent to deliver more than 40 grams of cocaine and to keeping a drug house,” according to the opinion.

Motion to suppress denied

Scull argued that the dog sniff of his home was a warrantless search and any information obtained from that unlawful search must be suppressed.  At the time Scull filed the motion to suppress, Wisconsin courts and US courts did not consider dog sniffs to be searches, due to their less intrusive nature compared to other activities considered searches, according to the opinion.   Scull’s motion to suppress was denied.

The courts ruled that dog sniffs of vehicles and luggage in airports were not searches and did not implicate Fourth Amendment rights, according to the opinion.  There was not a holding case that addressed dog sniffs of a person’s residence.

Law changes mid appeal

After Scull was convicted, he appealed the decision on the basis that the dog sniff search was an illegal search and the evidence obtained from it should be excluded.  While his appeal was pending, the US Supreme Court ruled in Florida v. Jardines that a dog sniff of the exterior of a home owner’s door and porch that is used to investigate the contents inside the home constitutes a search under the Fourth Amendment.

The Wisconsin court appeals, following the Jardines decision, determined that Scull’s Fourth Amendment rights were violated when the police performed a dog sniff search of his home without a warrant.  “Nevertheless, the court affirmed Scull’s conviction because the police subsequently obtained a search warrant upon which they relied in good faith,” according to the court opinion.

Police acted in good faith

The Supreme Court of Wisconsin also upheld the conviction and ruled that the good faith exception to the exclusionary rule, which excludes evidence that is illegally obtained, applied in Scull’s case.

The court determined that the police acted in good faith because they conducted a significant investigation before obtaining the warrant, which gave them enough probable cause to submit an affidavit to request a warrant.  The court further explained that the police officers would not have reasonably known the search was illegal considering the law on dog sniffs at the time of the search.

The case is State v. Scull, 2015 WI 22 case No. 2011AP2956–CR in the Supreme Court of Wisconsin.

Posted in Blog, Criminal Law / DUI

Comments are closed.

News Categories

Subscribe to Blog and VFJ via Email

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog, the Voice for Justice and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Read about other Top Jury Verdicts

Toyota Will Pay $180M to Settle Violations of the Clean-Air Act

Toyota Will Pay $180M to Settle Violations of the Clean-Air Act

The U.S. Department of Justice and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced today that the United States has[Read More...]
Boeing's Insitu Will Pay $25M to Settle a Whistleblower Complaint About Used Drone Parts

Boeing's Insitu Will Pay $25M to Settle a Whistleblower Complaint About Used Drone Parts

Bingen, Wash.-based Insitu, a Boeing subsidiary, has agreed to pay $25 million to settle allegations that it used recycl[Read More...]
Deutsche Bank Agrees to Settle Criminal and Civil Charges for $130M

Deutsche Bank Agrees to Settle Criminal and Civil Charges for $130M

DEUTSCHE Bank AG agreed to pay US$130 million to settle criminal and civil charges that it bribed foreign officials and manip[Read More...]
Boeing Pays $2.5B to Settle Charges Tied to the 737 MAX Crashes

Boeing Pays $2.5B to Settle Charges Tied to the 737 MAX Crashes

Boeing has agreed to pay just over $2.5 billion to resolve a federal charge of “criminal misconduct” for how its [Read More...]
Texas Attorney General Seeks $43M in Google Antitrust Lawsuit

Texas Attorney General Seeks $43M in Google Antitrust Lawsuit

The mass exodus of Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton's top staff over accusations of bribery against their former boss has le[Read More...]

#LegalNews

@@TheNTLtop100

Contact Us | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy

Attorney information and content provided on this website is provided for the benefit of members of The National Trial Lawyers and as a public service by Legal Associations Management, Inc. The website and all data are the property of Legal Associations Management, Inc. Data, including without limitation attorney information and content, on the site may not be mined, sold, or used commercially for any purpose without the explicit written consent of Legal Associations Management, Inc. This site may not be accessed by any automated program for extracting data for any use. By accessing and using the site you agree that you will not develop, support or use software, devices, scripts, robots, or any other means or processes (including crawlers, browser plug-ins and add-ons, or any other technology) to scrape data or otherwise copy profiles and other data. Unauthorized use or attempted unauthorized use of this system may subject you to both civil and criminal penalties.