Supreme Court Sides With Police Dog In Search Case-Florida v. Harris
http://www.cnn.com/2013/02/19/justice/supreme-court-search/
Summary: Florida v. Harris was a court case questioning weather a dog sniff by a trained narcotics dog was sufficient enough to enforce probable cause for a search and seizure of a car under the Fourth amenedament of the united states Constitution. On June 24 2006, Harris was initially pulled over due to expired tags, when approaching the vehicle the officer noticed harris shaking, breathing heavily, and agitated, the officer proceeded with the regulatory traffic stop. He noticed an open container of alcohol in the center consul cup holder, immediately the officers ask for consent to search the vehicle harris refuses at that point due the shaking and heavy breathing and open container of alcohol the officer deployed Aldo his K-9 companion, the officer then performed a "free air sniff" of the trucks exterior, the dog alerted his handler to the drivers side door handled. With "Probable cause " from aldo exterior sniff the officer then searched the car and found 200 pseudo-ephedrine pills in a plastic bag under the passenger seat and materials that seemed as if harris was producing large amount of methamphetamine.
Question: Was the officer justified to use Aldo (police dog) to do an exterior sniff of the vehicle due to the open container of alcohol in the front seat cup holder? Also how do we determine the consistency and reliability of a dogs nose throughout the years of service?
It's definitely fair if the dog was wrong the first time then I would understand if the Dog wasn't reliable but he got it right the first time. These dogs live and breath this stuff they a mans best friend id trust a dog over a human most of the time. (Humans are sketch af)
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI believe that Aldo (the police dog) was justified to do an exterior sniff of the vehicle. The open container of alcohol is enough evidence to justify its actions. There has obviously been many tests and studies as to the reliability of a dog's senses and smells, or else they would not be allowed around a police scene. As the Supreme Court held, "a police dog's reliability is determined through a common-sense evaluation of the relevant circumstances, rather than through a rigid set of judge-created requirements."
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteGood post. Key point was that the officer was able to spot incriminating evidence in plain sight. Mr. Harris definitely didn't watch the video we did last week about how to best deal with a traffic stop, but meth is TERRIBLE & he probably wasn't thinking clearly.
ReplyDeleteBecause of the open container in the car and clear suspision that the driver was drunk because of the way he responded to the officer. the Officer has a right to search his car but only with a warrent. Now he could clearly get him for driving under the influence and then search his car. Yes the dog is smart and has been trained to sniff illegal drugs.
ReplyDeleteBecause of the open container in the car and clear suspision that the driver was drunk because of the way he responded to the officer. the Officer has a right to search his car but only with a warrent. Now he could clearly get him for driving under the influence and then search his car. Yes the dog is smart and has been trained to sniff illegal drugs.
ReplyDeleteI believe that using Aldo, to do a more in depth search was constitutional. First of all the driver is violating the law by having alcohol in the car. You can't have alcohol in the car unless it is in the back, for such things such as transportation. It gave the right to the officer to use the dog for more search.
ReplyDeleteFirst of all Harris did wrong in having an open can of beer in the front in plain sight which ultimately gave the officer a suspicion that he was hiding something of greater value inside the car and to put icing on the cake the dog (Aldo) whom specializes in sniffing drugs and narcotics was relentless wagging his tail and tipped the officer that indeed Harris was definitely hiding something in his car. Which ultimately gives the officer a reasonable cause to search the vehicle which is constitutional.
ReplyDeleteI do believe that Aldo was justified to do an exterior sniff of the vehicle. The police man and police dog had a reasonable suspicion due to the evidence that was in plain sight. I think that the dog is reliable because it must have gone through lots of training to be where it is today.
ReplyDeleteI think that the police officer was justified in using Aldo to see if there was anything else going on. Due to the fact that there was alcohol and that he was driving under the influence, I think that having Aldo sniff the air was reasonable, because even if there wasn't drugs, there could have been more alcohol that he could have taken out to drink, which would just perpetuate the problem and danger of driving under the influence. A good way to test the reliability of the dogs after years of service would probably be to have tests every month or so, with various situations, whether they involved alcohol, drugs, various other dangerous substances, or any combination of them. This way, they could be prepared for various situations and ensure that they are as reliable as possible.
ReplyDeleteThe 4th Amendment protects citizens from unreasonable searches and seizures. The Supreme Court’s decision to allow a positive “hit” from the sniff of a police dog to establish probable cause in a search, is concerning. How can the public be assured that a police dog is accurate? In the Huffington Post article, “Florida v. Harris: Turning Police Dogs Into Search Warrants on a Leash,” author John W. Whitehead argues that “even expertly trained dogs with reliable handlers, are rarely accurate. One study demonstrated that dogs were incorrect in drug identification up to 60 percent of the time.” I am not sure U.S. citizens should be subjected to vehicle searches solely based on an officer’s suspicion and the use of police dog.
ReplyDeleteYes, the officer was justified for using Aldo for an exterior sniff of Harris' car. The officer saw the opened alcohol container in the car, which gave him probable cause to search. The Supreme Court said that "'...a police dog's reliability is determined through a common-sense evaluation of the relevant circumstances, rather than through a rigid set of judge-created requirements.'"
ReplyDeleteThe officer had probabal cause because the open container was just sitting there, therefor he has all the right to do so.
ReplyDeleteI believe it is justifiable because he did not force the man to open his doors without consent and had the dog sniff around first. Seeing a man look like that is probable cause for the dog, and the dog is probable cause for search. Also the dog was right, so it seems as if all was fair.
ReplyDeleteI believe that there was enough "probably cause" for the officer to deploy Aldo to do the "free air sniff" because of not only having multiple suspicions, but also the open alcohol container. The officer is not arresting the man solely because he wants to arrest him, he's doing it for the welfare and safety of others on the road. I think the "free air sniff" might have been more questionable had they not found anything, but they did. I think we can only determine the consistency and reliability of a dogs nose by consistently doing check up to make sure that they're sensing what they should be and not making any errors. It's entirely okay if dogs make a mistake also because they aren't perfect.
ReplyDeleteI believe that there was enough "probably cause" for the officer to deploy Aldo to do the "free air sniff" because of not only having multiple suspicions, but also the open alcohol container. The officer is not arresting the man solely because he wants to arrest him, he's doing it for the welfare and safety of others on the road. I think the "free air sniff" might have been more questionable had they not found anything, but they did. I think we can only determine the consistency and reliability of a dogs nose by consistently doing check up to make sure that they're sensing what they should be and not making any errors. It's entirely okay if dogs make a mistake also because they aren't perfect.
ReplyDeleteI believe that the officer had all right to have his Police dog sniff the vehicle. There was also an open alcohol bottle which would lead most people to assume there is something else also. Also, the cop did not force the man to open his car of anything like that, the dog just did what it was trained to do, sniff the outside. We can easily determine the reliability of a dogs smell throughout years of service. We just need to keep giving them smell tests, and put them on calls where they need to sniff things out. If the dog starts to get things wrong like sniff something out that isn't what the officer was searching for, then the dog is no longer useful, but cops just need to base this off of the effectiveness of the dog. If the dog makes one mistake, then its no big deal, but if it is constantly making mistakes then there is a problem.
ReplyDeleteI believe that the officer had the right to use his dog to check the contents of the vehicle. While walking to the car and citing the ticket, the officer had more than reasonable suspicion that the driver has hiding some illegal substances in his car. I believe that we can rely on the actions of a dog to determine if a car has illegal substances in it. These dogs are trained to smell illegal drugs and inform their officers when there are drugs in public. Therefore, I would trust its judgement. Also, there is minimal consequence if the officer searches the car and finds nothing due to the dog making a mistake.
ReplyDelete