da v. Harris
“Does a drug-detection dog's alert to the exterior of a vehicle provide an officer with probable cause to conduct a warrantless search of the interior of the vehicle?” This was the question that was argued in 2012 at U.S. supreme court. Clayton Harris was charged with possession of pseudoephedrine which can be used to manufacture meth. He was stopped by the Police during a traffic stop for expired registration. The K-9 squad dog alerted the officer of existence of drug. This gave the officer a probable to search the car. During the search, the officer found over 200 loose pills and others. The First District Court of Appeal affirmed, but the Florida Supreme Court reversed, holding that the State did not prove the dog's reliability in …show more content…
Justice Antonin Scalia delivered a 5-4 opinion affirming the Florida Supreme Court's decision. The Court held that the front porch of a home is part of the home itself for Fourth Amendment purposes. Police officers cannot go beyond the scope of that invitation. Entering a person's porch for the purposes of conducting a search requires a broader license than the one commonly given to the general public. Without such a license, the police officers were conducting an unlawful search in violation of the Fourth Amendment.
Florida v. Harris & Florida v. Jardines, both are related to the fourth amendment. Although, citizens have right to be secure against unreasonable search. The reliability of dogs to sniff was questioned in court of law. Also 4th amendment was questioned in these cases. Police officers did not have the right to approach the porch of Jardines’ house to find evidence, this is know as exclusionary rule,improperly gathered evidence may not be introduce in a criminal
“Does a drug-detection dog's alert to the exterior of a vehicle provide an officer with probable cause to conduct a warrantless search of the interior of the vehicle?” This was the question that was argued in 2012 at U.S. supreme court. Clayton Harris was charged with possession of pseudoephedrine which can be used to manufacture meth. He was stopped by the Police during a traffic stop for expired registration. The K-9 squad dog alerted the officer of existence of drug. This gave the officer a probable to search the car. During the search, the officer found over 200 loose pills and others. The First District Court of Appeal affirmed, but the Florida Supreme Court reversed, holding that the State did not prove the dog's reliability in …show more content…
Justice Antonin Scalia delivered a 5-4 opinion affirming the Florida Supreme Court's decision. The Court held that the front porch of a home is part of the home itself for Fourth Amendment purposes. Police officers cannot go beyond the scope of that invitation. Entering a person's porch for the purposes of conducting a search requires a broader license than the one commonly given to the general public. Without such a license, the police officers were conducting an unlawful search in violation of the Fourth Amendment.
Florida v. Harris & Florida v. Jardines, both are related to the fourth amendment. Although, citizens have right to be secure against unreasonable search. The reliability of dogs to sniff was questioned in court of law. Also 4th amendment was questioned in these cases. Police officers did not have the right to approach the porch of Jardines’ house to find evidence, this is know as exclusionary rule,improperly gathered evidence may not be introduce in a criminal