RIDGE RUNNER CHRONICLES: On Trying to Limit “Nasal Intrusions”

By Editor | October 14, 2025 |

By Bill Hoagland

Reading the headline for this column, you are probably wondering what in the world are “nasal intrusions”. We are actually talking about just how far the police and their drug-sniffing canine companions can go when searching an automobile and its occupants for drugs without violating the Fourth Amendment to the US Constitution. It is pertinent because on September 29, the US Supreme Court refused to grant a Writ of Certiorari in a criminal case in which the defendant was asking the court to put limits on where drug-sniffing dogs are allowed to sniff as a part of their job as drug-sniffers without a warrant.
The Fourth Amendment to the US Constitution provides in essence that the police cannot act “unreasonably” in searching a suspect or his property, whether it be a home or a vehicle. With respect to the search of a vehicle in particular, the Fourth Amendment requires that unless the owner consents, or unless the arresting officer has probable cause to search the vehicle based solely on observations from outside the vehicle, he cannot search the interior of the vehicle without a search warrant. (There are exceptions to this rule not pertinent here.) Likewise, if the police have a drug-sniffing dog with them, the dog cannot be used to search the interior of the vehicle without the owner’s consent, a warrant or probable cause from facts obtained outside the vehicle; otherwise, to let the dog in the car, without more, would constitute an “unreasonable” search. Any evidence obtained in an “unreasonable” search would not be admissible in a criminal trial against the driver.
In this case, Ashlee Mumford was stopped by police in Winterset, Iowa on March 5, 2022 for a minor traffic violation. The arresting officer thought he could smell marijuana while standing outside Mumford’s car but he wasn’t certain, so he summoned “Orozco”, a trained drug-sniffing dog to the scene. The driver would not consent to a search of the car but because the passenger window was open, “Orozco” voluntarily stuck his nose barely inside the window and immediately signaled that he could smell drugs, thereby giving the police probable cause to search the car. A search revealed the presence of drugs and drug paraphernalia in the car, resulting in the eventual trial and conviction of drug offenses for Ms. Mumford. Her conviction was confirmed by the Iowa Supreme Court, so she sought a review in the US Supreme Court, stating that the presence of Orozco’s nose just inside the window constituted an “unreasonable” search.
The US Supreme Court denied the Writ, which means in substance that if a dog, without provocation, sticks his nose barely inside the car window, this does not constitute an “unreasonable” search within the parameters of the Fourth Amendment. But what got my attention in this case was a dissenting opinion from one of the Iowa Supreme Court Justices in the case, who felt that allowing this dog to voluntarily stick his nose through the window, albeit ever so slight, “opened the door to a significant, distressing and embarrassing canine intrusion”. Really? Distressing and embarrassing? Most folks would not be distressed or embarrassed by a brief canine “nasal intrusion” in the car window, unless, of course, you had a ton of illegal drugs inside. Good job, Orozco, from someone who appreciates and who continues to be in awe of that unique nasal ability of a dog to do something no human, computer or robot will ever be able to accomplish.
–––––––––––––––
■ Bill Hoagland has practiced law in Alton for more than 50 years, but he has spent more than 70 years hunting, fishing and generally being in the great outdoors. His wife, Annie, shares his love of the outdoor life. Much of their spare time is spent on their farm in Calhoun County. Bill can be reached at [email protected].