Florida v. Harris
133 S. Ct. 1050 (2013)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
To establish probable cause for a search based on a drug-detection dog's alert, the state is not required to meet a rigid evidentiary checklist of the dog's field performance; rather, probable cause is determined by a flexible, totality-of-the-circumstances standard, where evidence of the dog's satisfactory performance in a certification or training program is sufficient to establish reliability.
Facts:
- On June 24, 2006, K-9 Officer William Wheetley conducted a traffic stop of Clayton Harris's truck for an expired license plate.
- Wheetley observed that Harris was visibly nervous and that there was an open can of beer in the truck's cup holder.
- Harris refused Wheetley's request for consent to search the vehicle.
- Wheetley then deployed his drug-detection dog, Aldo, for a 'free air sniff' around the truck's exterior.
- Aldo gave a positive alert for the presence of narcotics at the driver's-side door handle.
- A search of the truck based on Aldo's alert revealed ingredients for manufacturing methamphetamine but not the specific narcotics Aldo was trained to detect.
- During a second traffic stop while Harris was out on bail, Aldo again alerted on Harris's truck, but a subsequent search revealed nothing of interest.
- Aldo had successfully completed a 120-hour narcotics detection course, was certified by a private company (though the certification had expired), and participated in weekly training with Wheetley, with records showing satisfactory performance.
Procedural Posture:
- The State of Florida charged Harris in a state trial court with possession of pseudoephedrine for use in manufacturing methamphetamine.
- Harris filed a motion to suppress the evidence, arguing that the dog's alert did not provide probable cause for the search.
- The trial court denied the motion to suppress.
- Harris entered a no-contest plea but reserved his right to appeal the trial court's ruling on his motion.
- The Florida First District Court of Appeal, an intermediate appellate court, affirmed the trial court's decision.
- Harris appealed to the Florida Supreme Court, the state's highest court, which reversed the lower court's decision, holding that the State had not adequately established the dog's reliability.
- The State of Florida (petitioner) successfully petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari to review the Florida Supreme Court's decision.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Is a drug-detection dog's reliability for establishing probable cause to search a vehicle evaluated under a flexible, totality-of-the-circumstances test, or must the state satisfy a rigid checklist of evidentiary requirements, including comprehensive field-performance records?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Kagan
Yes. A drug-detection dog's reliability for establishing probable cause is evaluated under a flexible, totality-of-the-circumstances test. The Court reasoned that the Florida Supreme Court's rigid evidentiary checklist is inconsistent with the flexible, common-sense standard of probable cause articulated in cases like Illinois v. Gates. Probable cause is a 'fluid concept' based on a 'fair probability,' not a mechanistic inquiry with inflexible requirements. The Court found that field performance records are not the 'gold standard' of reliability, as they can be misleading; for instance, a dog may alert to residual odors of drugs that are no longer present, which is not an error, or fail to alert to well-hidden drugs, a 'false negative' that often goes unrecorded. By contrast, a dog's performance in controlled training and certification settings is a far better measure of its reliability. Therefore, evidence of a dog's satisfactory performance in a bona fide training program is sufficient to create a presumption of reliability, which a defendant then has the opportunity to rebut.
Analysis:
This decision reaffirms and applies the flexible 'totality of the circumstances' test for probable cause from Illinois v. Gates to the specific context of drug-detection dogs. It explicitly rejects a rigid, checklist-based approach, making it easier for law enforcement to establish probable cause based on a canine alert. The ruling effectively shifts the burden to the defendant to challenge a dog's reliability by attacking its training or the circumstances of a specific alert, rather than requiring the prosecution to affirmatively produce exhaustive field records in every case. The Court's distinction between the value of controlled training records versus potentially misleading field records provides clear guidance for lower courts on how to weigh evidence of a dog's reliability.
Unlock the full brief for Florida v. Harris