张玮心

（河南科技大学法学院，洛阳 471023）

【摘 要】美国宪法修正案第四条规定，人民享有身体、住所、文件及财物，不受国家不合理搜查与扣押，此项权利不得被任意侵犯。中国宪法第 39 条亦规定中华人民共和国公民的住宅不受侵犯，禁止非法搜查或者非法侵入公民的住宅。惟当警方利用缉毒犬协助侦查小区内有无种植大麻、藏匿毒品时，个人住家的隐私权便对上了公共利益。究竟缉毒犬的嗅查是否为宪法意义上的搜查？想象警方带着缉毒犬在一间民宅的门廊外走动，缉毒犬突然坐下，表示嗅查到毒品，警方据此申请搜查证入屋后扣押大量毒品，试问此所查获的证据是否应予排除？

【关键词】搜查；缉毒犬；证据排除法则；隐私权；公共利益

【中图分类号】D915.13

【文献标识码】A

【文章编号】1674-1226（2017）02-0213-12

Application of exclusionary rules to evidence detected by drug-sniffing dogs. Zhang Weixin; School of Law, Henan University of Science & Technology, Luoyang 471023.

【Abstract】The Fourth Amendment of U.S. Constitution provides that the rights of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated.The Article 39 of Constitution of the PRC also stipulates that the residences of citizens of the People’s Republic of China are inviolable. Unlawful search of, or intrusion into, a citizen’s residence is prohibited. However, when the police use a drug-sniffing dog to help detect the presence of marijuana and hiding drugs in the residential area,the privacy of personal homes began to contradict with the public interest. Is the sniffing of the dog constitutes a “search” within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment? Imagine the police walking outside the residential porch accompanied by a drug-sniffing dog. And suddenly, the dog sits down indicating the presence of drugs. The police accordingly apply for a search warrant and seize a large amount of drugs after entering into the house. Should the evidence seized be excluded?

【Key Words】 Search, Drug-sniffing dog, Exclusionary rule, Privacy, Public interest