Harris v. State
71 So. 3d 756
| Fla. | 2011Background
- Clayton Harris was charged with possession of pseudoephedrine with intent to manufacture meth and moved to suppress evidence from a warrantless truck search.
- A canine drug-detection dog, Aldo, alerted on the exterior driver's side door handle during a free-air sniff after Harris refused consent to search.
- Pills, matches, and muriatic acid were found in Harris's truck; Harris admitted meth fabrication and dependence on meth.
- Aldo, trained since 2004 and certified since 2004, was a single-purpose drug-detection dog with no standard statewide certification for such dogs in Florida.
- The trial court denied suppression; the First District affirmed; there was a conflict among Florida districts about what evidence is needed to establish probable cause from a dog’s alert.
- The Florida Supreme Court held that training/certification alone is insufficient; the State must present comprehensive reliability evidence under a totality-of-the-circumstances approach.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| What evidence establishes probable cause from a dog's alert? | Harris | State | Totality of circumstances required; trained/certified alone insufficient |
| Is field performance history required to show reliability? | Harris | State | Yes; field performance records and officer training must be shown |
| Who bears the burden to prove reliability of the dog? | Harris | State | State carries burden; defendant not required to produce all reliability records |
| Should there be uniform certification standards for drug-detection dogs? | Harris | State | No uniform standard; reliability assessed case-by-case under totality of circumstances |
| What factors should the trial court examine to assess reliability? | Harris | State | Training/certification, field performance, residual odor handling, and handler experience all considered |
Key Cases Cited
- Laveroni v. State, 910 So.2d 333 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005) (prima facie probable cause with training/certification; field performance may rebut)
- Coleman v. State, 911 So.2d 259 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005) (prima facie showing from training/certification; field performance important)
- Harris v. State, 989 So.2d 1214 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008) (supports relying on certification alone to prove probable cause)
- Gibson v. State, 968 So.2d 631 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007) (rejects relying solely on training/certification; requires track record)
- Matheson v. State, 870 So.2d 8 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003) (training/certification alone insufficient; emphasizes field performance)