State v. Grue
130 So. 3d 256
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2013Background
- Officer Alvarado, with his narcotics K-9 Dixie, pulled a FedEx package addressed to Joseph Grue and Dixie alerted to narcotics on January 4, 2012.
- Alvarado used a pre-printed affidavit that stated Dixie was trained, certified, had located "thousands of pounds of narcotics," and described the January 4 alert; the affidavit lacked detailed training or field-performance records.
- A magistrate issued a search warrant; the package contained oxycodone and cocaine. Grue was later arrested when he retrieved the package.
- Grue moved to suppress, arguing the affidavit failed to establish probable cause under Harris v. State (Harris I) because it lacked training details, certification explanation, and field-performance statistics.
- The trial court granted suppression based solely on the affidavit’s four corners, relying on Harris I; the State appealed while the U.S. Supreme Court decided Florida v. Harris (Harris II), overruling Harris I’s checklist approach.
- The appellate court reviewed the affidavit de novo, applied the totality-of-the-circumstances test from Harris II, and concluded the affidavit supplied probable cause; the suppression order was reversed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the affidavit established probable cause for a warrant based on a K-9 alert | Grue: affidavit was conclusory and lacked Harris I-required training, certification explanation, and field performance records | State: affidavit’s statements about Dixie’s training, certification, prior successful finds, and the specific alert sufficed | The alert and training assertions, viewed under Harris II’s totality-of-the-circumstances test, provided probable cause; reversal of suppression granted |
| Whether Harris I’s documentary checklist controls despite intervening Supreme Court precedent | Grue: trial court applied Harris I and suppression was proper | State: Harris II supersedes Harris I; a dog’s certification/training or successful completion of training can suffice without the detailed checklist | Harris II applies on appeal; the checklist in Harris I is not required; courts evaluate reliability under the totality of the circumstances |
Key Cases Cited
- Harris v. State, 71 So.3d 756 (Fla. 2011) (Florida Supreme Court decision imposing documentary checklist for K-9 reliability)
- Florida v. Harris, 133 S. Ct. 1050 (U.S. 2013) (U.S. Supreme Court rejecting Harris I’s checklist; endorsing totality-of-circumstances and that training/certification can suffice)
- Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213 (U.S. 1983) (probable cause assessed under the totality of the circumstances)
- State v. Siluk, 567 So.2d 26 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990) (K-9 alert can supply probable cause when dog is properly trained/certified)
- State v. Coleman, 911 So.2d 259 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005) (training and certification can establish a prima facie showing of K-9 reliability)
- State v. Felix, 942 So.2d 5 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006) (probable cause for warrants reviewed de novo based on affidavit’s four corners)
- State v. Irizarry, 948 So.2d 39 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006) (magistrate makes a practical, common-sense determination of fair probability that search will uncover evidence)
- Vetter v. State, 395 So.2d 1199 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981) (describing a dog as "trained" in an affidavit can establish probable cause)
- United States v. Sentovich, 677 F.2d 834 (11th Cir. 1982) (training alone may suffice to prove reliability of a detection dog)