|
''Florida v. Harris'', , was a case in which the United States Supreme Court addressed the reliability of a dog sniff by a detection dog trained to identify narcotics, under the specific context of whether law enforcement's assertions that the dog is trained or certified is sufficient to establish probable cause for a search of a vehicle under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution.〔(【引用サイトリンク】format=PDF )〕 ''Harris'' was the first Supreme Court case to challenge the dog's reliability, backed by data that asserts that on average, up to 80% of a dog's alerts are wrong.〔〔 Twenty-four U.S. States, the federal government, and two U.S. territories filed briefs in support of Florida as amici curiae.〔〔 Oral argument in this case – and that of another dog sniff case, ''Florida v. Jardines'' – was heard on October 31, 2012. The Court unanimously held that if a bona fide organization has certified a dog after testing his reliability in a controlled setting, or if the dog has recently and successfully completed a training program that evaluated his proficiency, a court can presume (subject to any conflicting evidence offered) that the dog's alert provides probable cause to search, using a "totality-of-the-circumstances" approach. ==Background== Prior to this case, the United States Supreme Court has on three occasions dealt with cases involving "dog sniffs" by detection dogs trained to identify narcotics, and has addressed whether or not a dog sniff constituted a "search" under the Fourth Amendment. In those three cases, the Supreme Court has held that: : * "... the canine sniff is ''sui generis''. We are aware of no other investigative procedure that is so limited both in the manner in which the information is obtained and in the content of the information revealed by the procedure." – ''United States v. Place'', : * "The fact that officers walk a narcotics-detection dog around the exterior of each car at the Indianapolis checkpoints does not transform the seizure into a search." – ''City of Indianapolis v. Edmond'', : * "A dog sniff conducted during a concededly lawful traffic stop that reveals no information other than the location of a substance that no individual has any right to possess does not violate the Fourth Amendment." – ''Illinois v. Caballes'', Indeed, the question of whether or not a canine sniff is a "search" was not at issue in this case. One passage from ''Caballes'' does, however, foretell the issue in the instant case: This case addressed whether that dog's alert alone is sufficient to establish probable cause for a search, or whether law enforcement must first establish the reliability of such an alert. 抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア（Wikipedia）』 ■ウィキペディアで「Florida v. Harris」の詳細全文を読む スポンサード リンク
|