|
Train Sleeper Cars
1. U.S. v. Colyer, 878 F.2d 469 (D.C. Cir. 1989). An Amtrak drug
enforcement agent became suspicious when reviewing train passenger list
based on Colyer's origin and destination (source city-use city), last
minute reservation, last minute ticket purchase, one-way ticket and
cash purchase. Agent and drug dog and handler met train. They walked
through the car toward the compartment rented by Colyer. The handler
directed dog to the mesh ventilation holes of compartments along the
way.
When they got to compartment rented by Colyer, dog alerted. Held: Sniff
by canine from public corridor of the train was not a search, thus requiring
Fourth Amendment protections. Because dog's sniff did not expose non-contraband
items that otherwise would remain hidden from view and because it was
not conducted in a manner or location that subjected Colyer to embarrassment
or inconvenience entailed in a less discriminate and more intrusive
method their was no violation or intrusion on Colyer's reasonable expectation
of privacy.
2. U.S. v. Tartaglia, 864 F.2d 837 (D.C. Cir. 1989). An Amtrak
drug officer reviewed manifest employing drug courier profile and found
a suspect. When train arrived in D.C. on 25 minute layover, the agent
approached the suspect's compartment with a drug detection dog and his
handler. The dog alerted on the suspect's compartment's mesh vent from
the public corridor. The suspect, when advised of the agent's identity
and the dog's alert, refused to consent to a search of the roomette.
A warrantless search ensued. Held: There was probable cause to conduct
a warrantless search due to the dog's alert and due to exigent circumstances
(the train was leaving in 25 minutes). The dog's alert to the vent was
only part of the probable cause. The court noted the dog's length of
training, the fact the dog and handler had worked together on numerous
occasions and the fact that of 54 times out, the dog had correctly alerted
to measurable deposits of drugs 52 times.
3. U.S. v. Trayer, 898 F.2d 805 (D.C. Cir. 1990). "So it
is not apparent that any defined level of suspicion is necessary before
a dog may be escorted along the corridor of a train, past a given compartment."
4. U.S. v. Whitehead, 849 F.2d 849 (4th Cir. 1988). Only reasonable
suspicion needed to bring dog into private sleeping compartment to sniff
luggage, more like auto that home; train was not delayed, luggage was
not moved, defendant was free to move. |
