According to the Justice Kagan, in the case of Florida vs. Harris, “we considered how a court should determine if the “alert” of drug-detention during a traffic stop provides probable cause to search a vehicle” (Kagan). On June 26, 2006, a Sheriff Officer of the State of Florida, William Wheetley and his drug detection dog, Aldo, were on patrol. Furthermore, Officer Wheetley conducted a traffic stop of the defendant Clayton Harris for expired tags on his truck. As Officer Wheetley approached the truck, he noticed that Harris was acting nervous/anxious, more than he should have, and he also noticed an open can of beer in the cup holder next to him. At that moment, Officer Wheetley knew that he was hiding something, he requested to search …show more content…
Officer Wheetley stated that he only had records of Aldo’s successes and no records of the times when he didn’t succeed. With no evidence of Aldo’s bad performances, the Supreme Court concluded that “ when a dog alerts, the fact that the dog has been trained and certified is simply not enough to establish probable cause.” Also, the Supreme Court established requirements that a dog and handler would have to meet to support a finding of “probable …show more content…
Harris is an important case for the law enforcement community. The case made it clear that the extensive demonstrations of reliability established by the Florida Supreme Court are not necessary. I am in favor of the US Supreme Court decisions because there was enough probable cause to make search of the vehicle. K-9 dogs are well trained with unique techniques to detect the presence of narcotics such as heroin, cocaine, marijuana, methamphetamine, and even though a k9 dog can also have false detections, as we as humans do as well, they can be very reliable. When and if an individual is stopped by a police officer and is acting suspicious, nervous, anxious, as if he was hiding something that 's more than enough probable cause to make a search. Police officers as well as the k-9 dogs are well trained, and they know when someone looks suspicious. Aldo, the k-9 dog, only proved Wheatley 's suspicion correct that Harris was nervous/anxious because he had those chemicals in the car. Simply the alert itself does not 100 percent constitute probable cause but it does not mean that the dog’s alert is not a critical piece of evidence which combined with the other evidence such as the officer 's suspicion, Harris’s nervous/anxious look, the can of alcohol in the car constitutes enough probable cause for the search. Aldo was deployed upon a suspicion based on all this other
In this case, the Supreme Court decision in reversing the decision of the trail court. Although the suspects were conducting an illegal crime, the officers were reckless in the procedures in collecting the evidence. In this case, if there was a report or call concerning the drug activities in the apartment, being that the Police Department was conducting a the drug sting, it would have justified the reasoning behind the officers kicking the door in and securing suspects and evidence.
The majority established this rationale by citing Kaisner Vs Kolb, McCain V. Florida Power Corps., City of Miami V. Horne, and Pinellas County written General Order A-9 as the basis for their reasoning. In these cases, with the exception of General Order A-9, the court opinion had been that law enforcement officers are liable for injuries caused by their own negligent or failure to adhere to standard public safety policy.
The issue that this case raises, is whether or not the officers had the right to search the car of a person who they just arrested, while the person is handcuffed and placed in the back of a squad car?
Facts: On November 2006 the Miami-Dade police department received an anonymous tip that the home of Joelis Jardines was been used to grow marihuana. On December 2006 two detectives along with a trained drug sniffing dog approached Jardines home. At the front door the dog signaled for drugs, as well as the detective who smelled the marihuana coming from inside. Detectives then wrote an affidavit and obtained a search warrant that confirmed the growth of marihuana in Jardine’s home. Jardines was then charged for drug trafficking. Jardines then tried to suppress all evidence and say that in theory during the drug sniffing dog was an illegal search under the 4th amendment. The trial courts then ruled to suppress all evidence, the state appellate courts then appealed and reversed, the standing concluding that there was no illegal search and the dog’s presence did not require a warrant. The Florida supreme court then reverse the appellate court’s decision and concluded that a dog sniffing a home for investigativ...
This case is about Scott Randolph, who’s home was searched without a warrant. Due to this “corrupted” search, police ended up finding cocaine in his home. As a matter of fact both Randolph and his wife Janet Randolph were present during the search, it’s stated that Randolph’s wife gave permission to search the house. However Randolph denied to give that consistent, but police believed that the wife’s permission was all they needed. After the encounter with the drugs, Randolph was arrested for drug possession. This case was taken to trail and both the appellate court and Georgie Supreme court believed that the search of Randolph's home was unconstitutional.
In the case of Illinois vs. Wardlow, many factors contributed to Wardlow’s arrest. Starting with the facts of the case, on September 9, 1995 Sam Wardlow fled after seeing police vehicles covering an area in Chicago where it was known to have high drug trafficking. Two police officers spotted Wardlow, Officers Nolan and Officer Harvey, and once Officer Nolan caught up with Mr. Wardlow, Officer Nolan proceeded to conduct a pat-down search of only the outer layer of clothing, or a “Terry Stop.” Officer Nolan was well aware that in this area, there was almost always a weapon on a suspect that was involved with some type of drug transaction. After conducting the frisk, Officer Nolan squeezed the opaque colored bag that Mr. Wardlow was carrying. He noticed that the object inside of the bag felt like a hard and heavy object which he believed could potentially be a gun. After looking inside the bag, Officer Nolan found a weapon inside, a .38 caliber handgun to be exact. On the spot, Officer Nolan and Officer Harvey arrested Mr. Wardlow.
The Court held that because of the “special facts” the “attempt to secure evidence of blood-alcohol content in this case was an appropriate incident to petitioner’s arrest.” Under current jurisprudence, we would construe the language about “special facts” as relating to the exigent circumstances exception to the Fourth Amendment – which resists categorical rules – and instead focuses on the need for the intrusion and the availability of a warrant. However, the language also justifies the search as “incident to petitioner’s arrest,” which would indicate that the test was upheld as a search incident-to-arrest. In situations where it is appropriate, that has been described as a “categorical” exception to the warrant requirement that does not require any case-by-case
The Supreme Court in Florida v. Jardines (2013) held that the police taking a drug dog onto the porch of someone’s home without a warrant violates the homeowners Fourth Amendment rights. This case affects every police department in the United States as well as making more stringent guidelines as to what is considered a violation of the Fourth Amendment rights.
To this day, Americans have many rights and privileges. Rights stated in the United States constitution may be simple and to the point, but the rights Americans have may cause debate to whether or not something that happens in society, is completely reasonable. The Texas v. Johnson case created much debate due to a burning of the American Flag. One may say the burning of the flag was tolerable because of the rights citizens of the United States have, another may say it was not acceptable due to what the American flag symbolizes for America. (Brennan and Stevens 1). Johnson was outside of his First Amendment rights, and the burning of the American flag was unjust due to what the flag means to America.
Bailey was living in an apartment where police obtained a warrant to search the premise for cocaine and firearms. When the police arrived to the area, Bailey was seen moving into the vehicle to which the police followed him. As Bailey was a mile away from the warrant area, Bailey was pulled over and was pat down to find a key in his pocket. Denying the key belong to Bailey himself, he was handcuffed and returned to the scene to which the key opened the apartment’s door.
Under the California Penal Code, officers are granted permission to search Johnson under the conditions of his probation. While acting upon this, they discovered multiple areas of the house in which controlled substances were hidden. Officers argued that by searching Johnson without a warrant, they prevented the potential destruction of evidence.
The case of the State of Florida vs. Chad Heins happened in 1994 in Mayport, Florida. It was on April 17, 1994 that Tina Heins, who was pregnant at the time, was found stabbed to death in her apartment. She shared an apartment with her husband Jeremy Heins and Jeremy’s brother Chad Heins. At the time of the incident Jeremy Heins was on a ship because he worked in the navy but Chad Heins was at the apartment. Before the incident happened Chad Heins, the defendant, who was nineteen at the time, used his brothers license to buy alcohol at a strip club near the apartment. After that Chad Heins had went to another bar where his brothers license got confiscated. He left the bar around 12:45 a.m. and went back to the apartment. He then washed his
A police officer is required to have probable cause to stop a vehicle, which can be, but not limited to a traffic violation, equipment violation, or simply suspicious activity. A frisk of the occupants of a vehicle is justified if the police officer has reasonable suspicion that the occupants are armed and dangerous. In this essay, I will identify the levels of police encounter involved in the case study. I will describe the legal requirements needed to justify each encounter. I will analyze the facts in the case study against each level of encounter to determine if Officer Smith was justified.
Mr. Rodriguez called 911 to report loud music from his neighbor’s house. He then walked to his neighbor’s house with his firearm and a video camera. After the confrontation with his neighbor, he called law enforcement once more to tell them he felt threatened and that he was standing his ground. While Paul Rodriguez waited for law enforcement to arrive at the scene, he used deadly force against Kelly Danaher. In this case, Mr. Rodriguez initiated the confrontation and there was no proven evidence that he was in danger (Flatow,
On 05/24/17, at 3:24pm, I Deputy Warden N. Christian was dispatched to 153 N. 20th St on a dog at large will point out. I arrived at the location and spoke to complainant. Complainant stated a black pit bull that resided across the street from her was running loose approximately 1 hour prior to my arrival. The pit bull chased two unknown people down the alley, appearing to bite one of them. The complainant didn’t have an exact address of dog owner but pointed out the house the dog lived at. I drove to 1060 E Long St where I met with dog owner Terence Taylor. I explained the situation to Mr. Taylor. Mr. Taylor admitted that his dog got out. He stated his sister let the dog out in the backyard and did not secure the dog in his kennel. The pit bull was able to get through an opening in the fence. I asked Mr. Taylor if his dog was current on dog license and vaccinations, Mr. Taylor stated his dog was not current on dog license. I asked Mr. Taylor if I could see his pit Bull, Mr. Taylor complied. I asked Mr. Taylor