Florida v. Harris and Florida v. ardines Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1000 words

Florida v. Harris and Florida v. ardines - Essay eventConsistent in all global legislative systems, legal cases are initially sought fall out in lower and trial courts.Subsequently, the finiss are appealed and challenged in higher courts such as unconditional judicatory. mixed concurring and dissenting opinions are revealed during the hearings of the cases and all circumstances are carefully accounted for before reaching closing conclusion. References to past legal cases are very critical as government agencys of most of the cases resemble to those in honest-to-god ones. This paper entails a detailed discussion and critical analysis of two separate legal cases which slang mutually similar circumstances. Legal facts of case FLORIDA V. JARDINES This case revolved on deciding whether using a drug-sniffing hot dog on curtilage of an individuals home, in hope of finding traces of illegal content, constitutes to marrow of bet as prescribed under the Fourth Amendment. Jardines h ouse front porch was searched by police with Franky, a drug-sniffing dog, and a warrant was requested on basis of suspicious info gathered through this search. Later, ganja and other related material were discovered from premises and Jardines was arrested and charged accordingly. FLORIDA V. HARRIS This case pertained to a similar situation whereby a police policeman, Mr. Wheetley, pulled over a driver for a routine check-post stop and insisted on inquisitory the vehicle after his trained K-9 dog indicated that side door handle reflects some traces of drugs content. Subsequently, only nut ingredients were found and Harris, the driver, was charged with its possession. Later out on bail, Harris ran into incumbent Wheetley again and a similar search was conducted but in vain. Harris filed a case to suppress the evidence on basis that the incumbent did non have probable cause for searching his trunk as the dog displayed incompetent performance. At the hearing, officer eventually c onfessed about expiry of certification and his lack of due diligence in maintaining updated records of dogs performances and trainings (Supreme Court of the United States a 1-6). Court decisions FLORIDA V. JARDINES At the hearing of trial court, Jardines claimed that dog-sniffing investigating had no reasonable cause and hence marijuana possession must be dispensed with. The trial court approved the performance which was subsequently reversed by the Florida Third District Court of Appeal. When petition was filed for scrutiny of this reversal, the Supreme Court nullified this decision and agreed to initial decision as given by trial court, suppressing that the trained-dog investigation falls under Fourth Amendment search and hence any warrant released on basis of information revealed in such search is itself void. FLORIDA V. HARRIS Initially, the trial court disapproved the motion to suppress on the grounds that officer had reasonable basis to conduct search. Harris entered an app eal against trial courts decision and the intermediate state court also affirmed the same. However, subsequently the Supreme Court intervened and denied trial courts decision and claimed that officer didnt have probable cause to search vehicle in accordance with the translation under Fourth Amendment. It ruled out on the adequacy of reason given by the officer that the dog was adequately certified and trained. Later, the court itself established certain standards to test dogs reliability and potential as it claimed that a wider range of evidence is required to indicate number of times the dog might have given a false alert in similar past situations. The Florida Supreme Court ordered that a complete set of records and exhibits for dogs credentials must be presented for review prior to establishing its potential and credibility. It designed various tests to assess its capabilities and produced a rigorous checklist which the