Harris v. the State
341 Ga. App. 831
| Ga. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Bruce Ervin Harris was indicted for trafficking and possession with intent to distribute ~40 pounds of marijuana found after a narcotics-detection canine ("PacMan") alerted to his checked luggage at Hartsfield–Jackson Airport.
- Harris filed motions to suppress challenging the seizure/search and the reliability of the canine alert; he served a subpoena duces tecum seeking all records relating to the canine and its handler.
- The State produced certification documents for the handler and PacMan (training completion certificates and NNDDA certification evidence) and moved to quash the subpoena as irrelevant, overly broad, and unduly burdensome.
- At the quash hearing Harris narrowed the subpoena to records relating to PacMan and the handler and argued he was entitled to underlying training and testing records to rebut the State’s certification evidence under Florida v. Harris.
- The trial court granted the State’s motion to quash, reasoning the requested materials were not relevant and were overly broad and burdensome.
- The Court of Appeals vacated the quash order and remanded, concluding it was unclear on this record whether the requested training records were relevant and whether the subpoena could be narrowed rather than fully quashed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a subpoena for canine and handler training/testing records is relevant to a suppression hearing challenging a dog alert | Harris: training/testing records are relevant to rebut certification and to impeach handler testimony about reliability | State: valid, current certification alone presumptively establishes reliability; training records irrelevant and subpoena overly broad | Vacated quash; certification does not preclude challenge — training/testing records may be relevant and subpoena may be modified rather than entirely quashed |
| Burden of proof when a motion to quash is filed | Harris: served subpoena meets initial relevance burden; court must allow access to materials to weigh competing evidence | State: showed certification suffices; thus records unnecessary | Court: party serving subpoena has initial burden; if demonstrably relevant, quash is error; here record insufficient to resolve relevance/burden |
| Whether Florida v. Harris creates an unrebuttable presumption from certification | Harris: Harris permits rebuttal and examination of underlying records/testing | State: certification in controlled setting establishes reliability without further proof | Court: Florida allows presumption but it is rebuttable; certification does not preclude challenge via records or cross-examining handler |
| Proper remedy for overly broad subpoena | Harris: seeks narrowed production to relevant items | State: sought full quash as oppressive | Court: trial court has discretion to modify subpoena under OCGA § 24-13-23; remand to determine whether narrowing suffices |
Key Cases Cited
- Florida v. Harris, 568 U.S. 237 (2013) (certification or recent successful training can supply probable cause but is subject to rebuttal)
- McKinney v. State, 326 Ga. App. 753 (2014) (court should weigh competing evidence when defendant contests canine reliability)
- Gregg v. State, 331 Ga. App. 833 (2015) (subpoena duces tecum must be honored where sought evidence is demonstrably relevant and material; quash is error)
- Bazemore v. State, 244 Ga. App. 460 (2000) (standard of review and trial court may modify subpoena in response to motion to quash)