Following an anonymous tip that marijuana is being grown at a residence, you use a trained narcotics detection canine. The marijuana seized from the home is:

• A. Inadmissible since the canine was used during a knock-and-talk and side yards cannot be searched.
• B. Admissible because the canine alerted at the side of the home.
• C. Admissible only if a warrant was obtained after the alert.
• D. Inadmissible for reasons unrelated to the canine.

Answer: (D)

The key idea is that evidence from a home search must come from a valid search under the Fourth Amendment—typically a warrant or a recognized exception. An anonymous tip alone does not establish probable cause to search a residence, and the presence or alert of a narcotics-detection dog does not automatically cure an otherwise unlawful search. If the initial encounter involved a knock-and-talk or the dog search occurred in a curtilage area (like a side yard) without consent or a warrant, the search would be unlawful regardless of the dog’s alert. The dog’s indication could contribute to probable cause only if supported by reliable corroborating facts under the totality of the circumstances; without that, the seizure would be suppressed. Thus, the marijuana would be inadmissible for reasons unrelated to the canine.