Rutherford Institute – by Nisha Whitehead
WASHINGTON, DC — In a 9-0 decision in Florida v. Harris, the U.S. Supreme Court has declared that police may use drug-sniffing dogs to carry out warrantless searches during routine traffic stops. Citing studies raising serious doubts about the reliability and training of drug detection dogs, The Rutherford Institute had asked the U.S. Supreme Court to declare the practice of using drug detection dogs as the sole basis for warrantless searches unconstitutional under the Fourth Amendment’s prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizures. Published scientific studies show that drug dog alerts are wrong as much as 56% of the time, and are heavily influenced by the biases of the dog’s handler.
The Rutherford Institute’s amicus brief in Florida v. Harris is available here.
“This ruling undercuts the entire basis of the Fourth Amendment, which was designed to protect us from unreasonable searches and seizures,” said John W. Whitehead, president of The Rutherford Institute. “When dog sniffs, which have proven to be unreliable, are considered probable cause for police to search your property without a warrant—whether it’s your home, your car or your person—then none of our rights are secure.”
In June 2006, a Florida county sheriff stopped a vehicle driven by Clayton Harris for an expired license tag. When Harris refused the sheriff’s request for consent to search the vehicle, a drug-detection dog was deployed and conducted a “free air sniff” of the exterior of the vehicle. When the dog alerted to the door handle on the driver’s side, the officer conducted a warrantless search of the interior of the vehicle and found materials used for the manufacture of methamphetamine. Harris was arrested and charged. However, before trial, Harris’ attorneys moved to suppress the evidence found as a result of the search of his vehicle, asserting that the search violated the Fourth Amendment. At the suppression hearing, the state introduced evidence that the dog had gone through training and was certified for drug detection, but presented no specific evidence documenting the dog’s overall performance nor records of the dog’s false alerts. In fact, Harris presented evidence that the dog had alerted to the same vehicle two months after his arrest, but a search of the vehicle revealed no illegal drugs. The trial court denied the motion to suppress, but the Florida Supreme Court granted the motion on appeal, ruling that evidence that the dog has been trained and certified to detect narcotics, standing alone, is not sufficient to establish the dog’s reliability for purposes of determining probable cause. The court held that the state has the burden of showing the officer had a reasonable basis for believing the dog was reliable by presenting evidence on matters such as training field performance records.
In asking the U.S. Supreme Court to affirm the lower court’s ruling, The Rutherford Institute documented empirical research showing dog alerts are not inherently reliable. One recent study at the University of California—Davis, showed that in a test where handlers were told drugs might be found at the test site, but no drugs were present, dogs gave false positive alerts an astonishing 85% of the time. The U.S. Supreme Court has yet to rule on a related case, Florida v. Jardines, which challenges the use of drug-sniffing dogs by police to carry out warrantless searches of private homes. The Rutherford Institute also filed an amicus brief in Florida v. Jardines.
I recently bonded a man from jail who gave up his 4th amendment rights when the sheriff who pulled him over for night speeding obtained consent to search the vehicle after threatening to use his drug dog to alert for drugs. The driver was carrying a small amount of pot and a pipe for which he went to jail.
The driver faces a misdemeanor fine of about $1200 as well as time lost going to court and other costs.
Carrying, or not, drivers should minimize their risk by obeying traffic laws because it is the simple infractions that lead to more complex infractions, (e.g. have current tags and insurance, don’t exceed speed limit, use turn signals, make complete stops, ensure that headlights and brake lights work).
A determined LEO will stop you anyway and concoct a reason, so do your best to keep under the radar and not send up any red flags.
g’luck
These dogs are trained to give “FALSE POSITIVES” in order to give the Cops reasonable suspicion to search any vehicle they want.
The Justice system is broken !!!
Yep!
In a 9-0 decision in Florida v. Harris, the U.S. Supreme Court has declared that DOGS will now decide whether or not you have any constitutional rights.
This is an outrage, and the fact of the supreme court voting unanimously on this issue reveals their intent to strip us of any and all rights. Didn’t anyone object on the grounds that dogs often “detect drugs” just to get rewarded by their handler, regardless of whether or not drugs are actually present?
The supreme court has lost their last shred of credibility with this decision.
Oh yea Jolly Roger, these dogs have as much say if not more when it comes to a vehicle or a house search. Of course that damned supreme court will approve of a dogs nose indicating a substance even if there is no controband because then the damned cop has reason to believe that you have drugs and if by chance you do they can steal your car or house – being a drug house or what ever – all because of a damn cops dog. And you know that if you kick at a police dog or kill the dog that it is damned near like assualting or killing a cop. Yea them guys like police dogs because they bring in a lot of money for the PD`s.
You both better watch it. Dogs have more rights than we do these days. Especially police dogs. lol Doesn’t that just make you feel so good about yourselves? The whole thing truly disgusts me.
…the Supreme Court is as corrupt as the rest of your government….impeach them…charge and convict them of treason..and hang their effing’ asses at the same time…9-0 at the same moment…hang them for treason…now!
Regards,
RJ O’Guillory
Author-
Webster Groves-The Life of an insane Family
The Supreme Court is the most corrupt branch of government since it’s their job to prevent Americans from being subjected to unconstitutional laws and practices.
When hangin’ time comes, they should be the first to go up.
This proves once and for all that the USSC is full of bought and paid for shills. They couldn’t find the Constitution with a guide from the Library of Congress leading them by their collective noses.
There’s another factor not mentioned in the article. Many of these drug sniffing dogs could just as well be trained to sniff out explosives, gunpowder, etc.
Even if there are no drugs in the car, they may very well find weapons, in which case you’re still screwed.
The cops would be no less happy with that.
True.
Leave it to pigs to turn dogs into rats.
http://prezbyter.blogspot.com/2013/02/rat-hounds.html