英文摘要 |
In recent years, foreign law enforcement practices have relied more heavily on dog-sniffs as a tool to investigate crimes involving terrorism, explosives, and drugs. In the past, owing to the effective enforcement of dog-sniffs, the technique was seldom a problem for legal academia. However, with an increase in the frequency of dog-sniffs as the technique to investigate crimes, their constitutionality and legality have risen to the surface of the legal world and practice. Whether the enforcement of dog-sniffs encroach upon fundamental human rights protected by the Constitution is an issue that has triggered many questions concerning if they constitute a violation of the United States Fourth Amendment rights. Should they be deemed as a search? Does using dog-sniffs require a search warrant? This article analyzes the nature of dog-sniffs, used by law enforcement, through United States Supreme Court precedents, and explores their involvement with fundamental human rights, including the right to privacy and the property right, protected by the Fourth Amendment. Furthermore, it analyzes facts within various types of cases, separating and categorizing the disparate types of facts into either warranted or warrantless exemplifications. Lastly, this article concludes with distinguishing two types of facts, including “stop and frisk” and the area “immediately surrounding and associated with the home” in order to establish proper guidelines for law enforcement practice and court postures in Taiwan. |