MADISON - Police in Wisconsin can legally run drug-sniffing dogs around cars during traffic stops, a divided state Supreme Court ruled Wednesday.

The decision marks the first time the court has applied state law to so-called dog sniffs. The ruling follows two U.S. Supreme Court decisions that dog sniffs don't qualify as searches under the U.S. Constitution's ban on unreasonable searches and seizures.

The ruling arises from a 2005 case in Clark County. According to the state Supreme Court opinion, Colby-Abbotsford police officer Brian Rennie saw Ramon Lopez Arias load beer into a 17-year-old girl's car, then get in the passenger seat and ride off with her.

The officer stopped the girl because state law prohibits minors from driving with intoxicants in the vehicle. After the girl blew a zero on a breathalyzer test, Rennie allowed his police dog, D'Jango, to sniff around the car.

D'Jango hit on both sides of the car. The officer told Arias to get out, then searched the car. He found Arias' switchblade knife and a bag of cocaine.

Clark County Circuit Judge Jon M. Counsell wouldn't allow the knife and cocaine as evidence, saying they resulted from an illegal search. A state appeals court sent the case directly to the Supreme Court.

Arias, now 33, argued the dog sniff amounted to a search, which the officer had no reason to undertake. He also argued the sniff-search extended a reasonable traffic stop into an unlawful one that lasted nearly 40 minutes.

Justice Patience Roggensack, writing for the majority in a 4-3 opinion, said the court would not deviate from the U.S. Supreme Court's findings that dog sniffs aren't searches and don't violate a person's federal rights.

A person in a car has no reasonable expectation of privacy in the air space around it and a sniff-search is minimally intrusive, Roggensack added.

As for the length of the stop, Roggensack said the dog sniff took only 78 seconds of the 38-minute stop.

The court sent the case back to the trial level, saying a judge could hold a hearing on whether the dog sniff was enough to establish cause to search the vehicle.

The state Department of Justice handled the case for the state. Attorney General J.B. Van Hollen applauded the ruling in a statement, saying it will help fight drug trafficking.

Arias' attorney, Lora B. Cerone, called the decision disheartening and "scary." Officers apparently no longer need justification for searching around cars with their dogs if it's done quickly, she said.

"If they pull you over without a reason, it's illegal. Now, if it's not too long, we're not going to suppress the evidence. That's brand new," she said.

The court probably felt it couldn't let a man caught with drugs go free, she added.

In another ruling Wednesday, the court said police in Racine needed a warrant to seize crack cocaine from a man's bedroom after they chased him into his house and arrested him in 2005.

Officers searched Dwight Sanders' bedroom twice. It's unclear which search turned up the drug.

Chief Justice Shirley Abrahamson, writing for the majority, said the officers were justified in conducting an initial search to protect themselves. But they shouldn't have seized and searched a canister containing crack cocaine because that move went beyond protection.

The officers also needed a warrant to do the second search because Sanders had been removed from the home by then and they knew they were safe in the house.

Sanders' attorney, Patrick M. Donnelly, didn't immediately return a message. Bill Cosh, a spokesman for the Justice Department, which brought that case to the Supreme Court, declined comment.

Copyright 2008 The Associated Press.