In a decision that could impact future legal proceedings involving drug detection, the Tennessee Supreme Court provided clarification on the validity of a drug-sniffing dog's alert as part of probable cause. The ruling comes from an incident that involved Andre JuJuan Lee Green, who argued that the dog's alert could not differentiate between legal hemp and illegal marijuana, potentially violating his constitutional rights during a search. This judgment was elucidated on a case that occurred on February 16, 2020, following a routine traffic stop in Clarksville, Tennessee, as reported by Tennessee Courts.
Officer Andrew Trescott, having stopped the vehicle, smelled a strong odor that the driver, Julio Chavez, claimed originated from three pine tree air fresheners. Despite the driver and the passenger, Mr. Green, claiming that a backpack positioned between Mr. Green's feet did not belong to them, a drug-sniffing dog alerted to the presence of illegal drugs following an external inspection of the vehicle. The subsequent search yielded marijuana, a firearm, and other items associated with the intent to sell drugs. "Mr. Green was charged with, among other things, possession of marijuana with intent to sell, and possession of a firearm with intent to go armed during a dangerous felony," according to the details shared by Tennessee Courts.
Mr. Green filed a motion to suppress the evidence found in the backpack, citing the drug-detecting dog’s inability to distinguish between hemp, which was legalized in Tennessee in 2019, and marijuana. The trial court ruled in Green's favor to suppress the evidence; however, this decision was overturned by the Court of Criminal Appeals and subsequently brought before the Tennessee Supreme Court. The higher court's clarification did not stand alone as a determining factor, but as a formative part of the 'total circumstances' considered to establish probable cause, Tennessee Courts explains.
The Tennessee Supreme Court highlighted in its reasoning that while the legality of hemp adds complexity to a dog's alert certainty, probable cause does not require absolute certainty. Along with the dog's alert, Officer Trescott observed additional suspicious factors involving the backpack's dubious ownership. Viewing these elements collectively, the Court found sufficient probable cause for the search, reversing the trial court's earlier decision to suppress the evidence found in Mr. Green's vehicle. "An alert from a drug-sniffing dog still shows a likelihood that illegal drugs are present," the Supreme Court stated, as per the report by Tennessee Courts.
