SC08-1871 – Clayton Harris v. State of Florida

SUPREME COURT CASES

Laws-info.com » Cases » Florida » Florida Supreme Court » 2011 » SC08-1871 – Clayton Harris v. State of Florida

State: Florida

Docket No: SC08-1871

Case Date: 04/21/2011

Preview:Supreme Court of Florida
____________ No. SC08-1871 ____________ CLAYTON HARRIS, Petitioner, vs. STATE OF FLORIDA, Respondent. [April 21, 2011] REVISED OPINION PARIENTE, J. When will 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? That is the question in this case, and the answer is integral to the constitutional right of all individuals in this state to be protected from unreasonable searches and seizures.1

1. The issue in this case is not whether a dog`s sniff of the exterior of a vehicle constitutes a search. That has been answered by the United States Supreme Court. See Illinois v. Caballes, 543 U.S. 405, 407-08 (2005) (holding that a canine sniff of an automobile need not be justified by reasonable articulable suspicion of drug activity); City of Indianapolis v. Edmond, 531 U.S. 32, 40 (2000) (recognizing that a canine sniff of an automobile is not a search); see also United

The issue of when a dog`s alert provides probable cause for a search hinges on the dog`s reliability as a detector of illegal substances within the vehicle. We hold that the State may establish probable cause by demonstrating that the officer had a reasonable basis for believing the dog to be reliable based on the totality of the circumstances. Because a dog cannot be cross-examined like a police officer on the scene whose observations often provide the basis for probable cause to search a vehicle, the State must introduce evidence concerning the dog`s reliability. In this case, we specifically address the question of what evidence the State must introduce in order to establish the reasonableness of the officer`s belief--in other words, what evidence must be introduced in order for the trial court to adequately undertake an objective evaluation of the officer`s belief in the dog`s reliability as a predicate for determining probable cause. The appellate courts addressing the issue in this state have differed on what evidence the State must present to meet its burden. The decision of the First District Court of Appeal in Harris v. State, 989 So. 2d 1214 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008), expressly and directly conflicts with the decisions of the Second District Court of Appeal in Gibson v. State, 968 So. 2d 631 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007), and Matheson v.

States v. Place, 462 U.S. 696, 706-07 (1983) (holding that a canine sniff of luggage does not constitute a search).

-2-

State, 870 So. 2d 8 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003). 2 In Harris, the First District without elaboration cited State v. Laveroni, 910 So. 2d 333 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005), and State v. Coleman, 911 So. 2d 259 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005), as authority in support of affirming the trial court, which upheld the search at issue. The First District also cited Gibson, which followed Matheson, as contradictory authority. The reliability of a dog as a detector of illegal substances is subject to a totality of the circumstances analysis. Thus, the trial court must be presented with the evidence necessary to make an adequate determination as to the dog`s reliability. For the reasons explained below, we hold that evidence that the dog has been trained and certified to detect narcotics, standing alone, is not sufficient to establish the dog`s reliability for purposes of determining probable cause-- especially since training and certification in this state are not standardized and thus each training and certification program may differ with no meaningful way to assess them. Accordingly, we conclude that to meet its burden of establishing that the officer had a reasonable basis for believing the dog to be reliable in order to establish probable cause, the State must present the training and certification records, an explanation of the meaning of the particular training and certification of that dog, field performance records, and evidence concerning the experience and

2. We have jurisdiction. See art. V,

Download SC08-1871 – Clayton Harris v. State of Florida.pdf