Florida v. Harris (11-817)

argument 11-817

Florida v. Harris

Supreme Court of the United States 54 min 5 speakers 8 chapters transcribed 4 days ago official recording ↗

▲ 0

Transcript

jump: chapters · speakers · find in transcript

Transcript

Transcript generated automatically by AI and may contain errors.

What legal question does the Supreme Court face about a drug‑detection dog’s alert?

John G. Roberts 0:04

Mr. Gar? Welcome back.

Unknown 0:06

Thank you, Your Honor. Uh and may I please the court. Uh the question in this case is when does a trained drug detection dog's alert to a vehicle establish probable cause to search the vehicle? Are you for or against the dog this time? Word again, Your Honor. The the Florida Supreme Court answered that question by erecting what we think is an extraordinary set of evidentiary requirements in effect Puts the dog on trial in any suppression hearing in which a defendant chooses to challenge the reliability of the dog. I think most fundamentally the problem with the Court of Appeals, the Supreme Court's decision, is that it misconceives what this court's cases conceive of the probable cause requirement. Converting probable cause, which this court has referred to as a substantial chance or fair probability.

Unknown 0:54

of the detection of contraband or evidence of a crime into what amounts to a a bat a continuously updated batting average and a requirement that dogs be virtually infallible. That requirements That's require that goes to the um field performance. But the other requirements that the some showing that the test that that the uh training program is reputable Amen. Some showing that the handler, not only the dog, had a skin. has had training. It seems to me that those two uh is n not n there's nothing improper about that. Well and I think your honor under our view of it, it's okay to inquire into whether or not the dog has successfully completed a bona fide training program, which which we think is a training program in which the dog is going to be tested for proficiency, including in a setting where some vehicles have drugs and some d vehicles don't.

Unknown 2:00

And although the dog in this case clearly was, he'd received a hundred and twenty hour training program with the with the police department apopka, Florida. He received a forty hour refresher seminar by another police department. in Dothan, Alabama, and he was subjected to continuous w weekly training, in which part of that training consisted of taking him out, walking him by some vehicles that contained cars, some vehicles that didn't. And the testimony of Officer Wheatley was that Aldo's performance was really good and what he meant by that was that if there were eight cars with drugs why didn't then why didn't they get the dog recertified? By the time of this search The certification had expired sixteen months.

Unknown 2:38

It was elapsed, Your Honor. The dog subsequently was recertified. Our position is that the Fourth Amendment doesn't impose an annual certification requirement. Some states have it, some states don't. I think mo more important in this case was the fact that the dog was continuously trained, continuously evaluated and trained. to establish that the dog was well trained. Well, Your Honor, I think the most important thing is successful completion of proficiency testing. I mean what what what our friends would like and what the Florida Supreme Court would like would really for the courts to delve into all aspects of the training, what types of distractors were used, what type of smell and printing was used.

Unknown 3:19

Well if it were just that That you have to show that the program was reputable. Well it certainly that it was authentic, Your Honor. And here that the programs were were conducted by actual police departments in in Alabama and Florida and there's and this court ordinarily would presume uh regularity uh in those sorts of training settings and there's no reason to approach the training of a dog.

Elena Kagan 3:44

facilities were private entities that contracted with police departments.

Unknown 3:48

No, Your Honor, the certification. Certification usually is done by private entities which are uh operated by former law enforcement officers, but the training itself It usually and here was done by police departments themselves.

Elena Kagan 4:01

Could I go back to Justice Ginsburg's question? Um There's no I what I hear read the Florida court saying is there's no national standard for certification. That's correct. Yes. There's no national standard that defines what's adequate training, correct?