4rth Amendment
Opinion of Guan Yin
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
No. 11-817
STATE OF FLORIDA, Petitioner,
v.
CLAYTON HARRIS, Respondent.
ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA
Syllabus
The case present before us involves the constitutionality of a dog sniff in regards to the 4rth Amendment. The respondent claims that the police officer, a representative of the State of Florida lacked probable cause to search the vehicle. The dog used in the operation, Aldo was not reliable since his detector certification had expired. Also, the officer did not maintain a record of his field performance alerts. As a result, the respondent contends that Aldo’s alert was false thereby diminishing the validity of probable cause. On the other hand, the State of Florida counters by arguing that probable cause is a flexible common sense standard and requires only a fair probability and not hard certainties. Moreover, the officer who had trained with the dog is the best judge of the dog’s credibility as opposed to the Court’s especially since law enforcement agencies act with good faith. Consequently, defense counsel moved to suppress the physical evidence as the product of a warrantless search without probable cause. The trial court denied the motion to suppress but made no findings. The respondent then appealed to the Florida First District Court of Appeal. They affirmed. Harris v. State, 989 So. 2d 1214 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008). The Florida Supreme Court quashed the lower court decision. Harris v. State, 71 So. 3d 756 (Fla. 2011). The Court scrutinized the case under the totality of the circumstances test established in Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213 (1983) and concluded that Aldo’s reliability, was not enough to demonstrate probable cause.
Reversed and remanded: A dog sniff constitutes a minimal intrusive search,
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
No. 11-817
STATE OF FLORIDA, Petitioner,
v.
CLAYTON HARRIS, Respondent.
ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA
Syllabus
The case present before us involves the constitutionality of a dog sniff in regards to the 4rth Amendment. The respondent claims that the police officer, a representative of the State of Florida lacked probable cause to search the vehicle. The dog used in the operation, Aldo was not reliable since his detector certification had expired. Also, the officer did not maintain a record of his field performance alerts. As a result, the respondent contends that Aldo’s alert was false thereby diminishing the validity of probable cause. On the other hand, the State of Florida counters by arguing that probable cause is a flexible common sense standard and requires only a fair probability and not hard certainties. Moreover, the officer who had trained with the dog is the best judge of the dog’s credibility as opposed to the Court’s especially since law enforcement agencies act with good faith. Consequently, defense counsel moved to suppress the physical evidence as the product of a warrantless search without probable cause. The trial court denied the motion to suppress but made no findings. The respondent then appealed to the Florida First District Court of Appeal. They affirmed. Harris v. State, 989 So. 2d 1214 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008). The Florida Supreme Court quashed the lower court decision. Harris v. State, 71 So. 3d 756 (Fla. 2011). The Court scrutinized the case under the totality of the circumstances test established in Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213 (1983) and concluded that Aldo’s reliability, was not enough to demonstrate probable cause.
Reversed and remanded: A dog sniff constitutes a minimal intrusive search,
Citations: No periods before the citation. 149/150 (due to italicization issues!)