Florida v. Harris

Florida v. Harris, 568 U.S. 237 (2013), was a case in which the United States Supreme Court addressed the reliability of a dog sniff by a detection dog trained to identify narcotics , under the specific context of whether law enforcement 's assertions that the dog is trained or certified is sufficient to establish probable cause for a search of a vehicle under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution .

Harris was the first Supreme Court case to challenge the dog's reliability, backed by data that asserts that on average, up to 80% of a dog's alerts are wrong.

Twenty-four U.S. States, the federal government, and two U.S. territories filed briefs in support of Florida as amici curiae .

Police dog

Oral argument in this case – and that of another dog sniff case, _Florida v. Jardines _ – was heard on October 31, 2012. The Court unanimously held that if a bona fide organization has certified a dog after testing his reliability in a controlled setting, or if the dog has recently and successfully completed a training program that evaluated his proficiency, a court can presume (subject to any conflicting evidence offered) that the dog's alert provides probable cause to search, using a "totality-of-the-circumstances " approach.

Contents

• 1 Background

• 2 Facts of the case

• 3 Aldo's training and reliability

• 4 Lower court

• 5 Supreme Court

  • 5.1 Question presented

  • 5.2 Amicus curiae

  • 5.3 Arguments

    • 5.3.1 False alerts in the field

  • 5.4 Decision

• 6 See also

• 7 References

• 8 External links

Background

(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Florida_v._Harris&action=edit&section=1 "Edit section: Background")

Prior to this case, the United States Supreme Court has on three occasions dealt with cases involving "dog sniffs" by detection dogs trained to identify narcotics , and has addressed whether or not a dog sniff constituted a "search " under the Fourth Amendment . In those three cases, the Supreme Court has held that:

... the canine sniff is _sui generis _. We are aware of no other investigative procedure that is so limited both in the manner in which the information is obtained and in the content of the information revealed by the procedure.

— _United States v. Place _, 462 U.S. 696, 706 (1983)

The fact that officers walk a narcotics-detection dog around the exterior of each car at the Indianapolis checkpoints does not transform the seizure into a search.

— _City of Indianapolis v. Edmond _, 531 U.S. 32, 40 (2000)

A dog sniff conducted during a concededly lawful traffic stop that reveals no information other than the location of a substance that no individual has any right to possess does not violate the Fourth Amendment.

— _Illinois v. Caballes _, 543 U.S. 405, 410 (2005)

Indeed, the question of whether or not a canine sniff is a "search" was not at issue in this case. One passage from Caballes does, however, foretell the issue in the instant case:

Respondent likewise concedes that "drug sniffs are designed, and if properly conducted are generally likely, to reveal only the presence of contraband." Although respondent argues that the error rates, particularly the existence of false positives, call into question the premise that drug-detection dogs alert only to contraband, the record contains no evidence or findings that support his argument. Moreover, respondent does not suggest that an erroneous alert, in and of itself, reveals any legitimate private information, and, in this case, the trial judge found that the dog sniff was sufficiently reliable to establish probable cause to conduct a full-blown search of the trunk." (emphasis added)(citation omitted)

— _Illinois v. Caballes _, 543 U.S. 405, 409 (2005)

This case addressed whether that dog's alert alone is sufficient to establish probable cause for a search, or whether law enforcement must first establish the reliability of such an alert.

Facts of the case

(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Florida_v._Harris&action=edit&section=2 "Edit section: Facts of the case")

On June 24, 2006, a Liberty County, Florida Sheriff's Canine Officer Wheetley and his drug-detection dog , Aldo, were on patrol. The officer conducted a traffic stop of defendant Clayton Harris's truck because his tag had expired. Approaching the truck, the officer noticed that the defendant was shaking, breathing fast, and appeared agitated – he also noticed an open beer container in the vehicle's cup holder. When the defendant refused consent to search the truck, the officer deployed Aldo to walk around the truck. As he performed a "free air sniff" of the truck's exterior, the dog alerted his handler to the driver's side door handle.

The officer then searched the vehicle, and found over 200 pseudoephedrine pills in a plastic bag under the driver's seat. On the passenger's side, the officer found boxes containing a total of 8000 matches. Harris was then placed under arrest, and a further search uncovered muriatic acid , antifreeze /water remover, a foam plate inside a latex glove , and a coffee filter with iodine crystals. The officer testified that these chemicals are precursors of methamphetamine . After being read his Miranda rights , Harris stated that he had been "cooking meth" for about one year, and had most recently cooked it at his home two weeks prior. As no methamphetamine was found in the vehicle, the State charged Harris with possession of the listed chemical pseudoephedrine with intent to use it to manufacture methamphetamine.

About two months after the June 24 stop, Harris was again stopped by the same officer for another traffic infraction. During that stop, the officer again deployed Aldo – who once again alerted to the driver's side door handle. The officer again searched the vehicle, and found no illegal substances, save for an open bottle of alcoholic beverage.

The trial court denied Harris's motion to suppress the evidence produced by the search, and instead found that there was probable cause to support the search. The decision of the Florida First District Court of Appeal (DCA), in a per curiam decision, affirmed the trial court's ruling. The First District, without elaboration, cited _State v. Lave

…