New York Criminal Attorney Blog
New York’s Appellate Division sent a clear message in People v Butler (July 3, 2025): officers cannot press a drug-sniffing dog against your clothing or skin unless they already have probable cause. The justices threw out a heroin conviction because a trooper let a canine push its snout into the defendant’s waistband during a traffic stop. That intrusion, the court ruled, crossed the line from a minimal sniff to a search so personal that it triggered the highest constitutional protections. If you ever face a roadside dog search, this decision can shape your options, your motions, and your leverage at every stage of the case.
The Decision Raises the Bar for Personal Privacy
The court compared a quick sniff around a car’s exterior with a dog’s nose pressed into intimate areas of a human body and concluded the two encounters are worlds apart. A vehicle sniff affects property; a body sniff affects dignity, autonomy, and personal security. Because the intrusion targets the “most private sphere,” the judges placed it in the top tier of the People v De Bour framework, which requires probable cause rather than mere reasonable suspicion. From now on, officers must point to concrete, verifiable facts suggesting you actually possess contraband before directing a dog toward your person.
Why Probable Cause Changes the Game
Reasonable suspicion rests on hunches bolstered by specific, articulable facts. Probable cause, by contrast, demands a fair probability that evidence of wrongdoing is present. When the standard jumps from suspicion to cause:
-
A warrant becomes the default unless an established exception—such as exigent circumstances—applies.
-
Evidence gathered after an unsupported body sniff faces a strong chance of suppression.
-
Prosecutors often lose bargaining power, which can lead to reduced charges or even dismissals.
These consequences give you a powerful new tool to challenge any search that lacked a solid factual foundation before the dog even left the patrol car.
How Body Sniffs Typically Unfold During Traffic Stops
Most personal dog sniffs arise from routine traffic stops that escalate quickly. An officer might claim to smell marijuana, observe a “furtive” gesture, or notice nervous speech, then call in a canine unit. Under the Butler rule, the officer must already possess a set of facts strong enough to justify a full search. The dog’s presence cannot create probable cause after the fact. If the facts do not add up before the intrusion, any drugs or weapons discovered later may never reach the courtroom.
Steps You Should Take Right After a Dog Search
A strong defense starts the moment the encounter ends. Act quickly to preserve evidence and protect your rights:
-
Request all recordings immediately. Body-camera video, dash-cam footage, and dispatch audio can reveal when the dog arrived, where it sniffed, and whether the handler encouraged contact.
-
Write down every detail while your memory is fresh. Record the officer’s words, the duration of the stop, and the exact location of the dog’s sniff. Small details often drive suppression motions.
-
Identify witnesses who saw or heard the search. Passengers and bystanders can confirm whether the officer announced a reason for using the dog or skipped important procedural steps.
Handle these tasks within days, not weeks, to preserve unaltered digital files and clear recollections.
Taking these steps right away strengthens any future motion to suppress and signals to prosecutors that you will challenge weak probable-cause claims.
Using Butler in Plea Negotiations
Because the canine sniff doctrine is now stricter, prosecutors must weigh the risk of losing their key evidence in a suppression hearing. Your lawyer can highlight the new standard and ask pointed questions:
-
Did the officer gather enough facts to meet probable cause before the dog arrived?
-
Was a warrant practical but ignored?
-
Did the dog physically contact your clothing or skin, deepening the intrusion?
-
Were you handcuffed, encircled, or otherwise coerced when the sniff occurred?
Clear answers often reveal gaps in the State’s case, encouraging the district attorney to extend a favorable offer or even dismiss charges outright.
Build a Record with Appeals in Mind
The defendant in Butler won because trial counsel preserved each issue through timely objections, written motions, and a full evidentiary record. You should follow the same disciplined approach. Insist that your attorney files:
-
A comprehensive discovery demand under Criminal Procedure Law § 245.
-
A detailed suppression motion that explains why the dog search lacked probable cause.
-
Objections on the record if the court credits the State’s version without sufficient proof.
Even if the trial ends unfavorably, a complete record keeps appellate doors open and maintains pressure on the prosecution during every phase of litigation.
Act Now to Safeguard Your Future
A police dog sniff may last only seconds, yet its legality can determine the outcome of an entire case. By elevating the standard to probable cause, People v Butler empowers you to challenge invasive searches and reclaim your privacy. Do not assume the officer’s actions were lawful. Time limits on discovery requests, suppression motions, and speedy-trial rights start ticking the moment of arrest. Fast action preserves evidence, locks in witness memories, and positions you for success in negotiations, hearings, or appeals.
Call Tilem & Associates, P.C. Today
When your freedom depends on suppressing evidence from an unlawful dog search, skilled legal guidance is essential. Reach out to Tilem & Associates, P.C. at 877-377-8666 right now. Our team will dissect the stop, scrutinize every factual claim, and fight to exclude evidence obtained without probable cause. Take control of your defense today—contact us for a consultation and protect your rights before they slip away.