Florida Vs Harris Case Study
Search and Seizure Portfolio
In his article Florida v. Harris: Turning Police Dogs into Search Warrants on a Leash, John Whitehead questions the intentions of both police officers and Supreme Court judges, who seem to be condoning and ruling in favor of unconstitutional searches of American citizens. The criteria for what qualifies as probable cause has now been left up to the judgement of an officer. With variance in why a search should be conducted, Americans are left in the dark when it comes to their own rights. Although the Constitution outlines these rights, their interpretations gets lost when the Supreme Court rules in the favor or those who seem to be abusing their power rather than using it to protect the American people. .
In 2006, Clayton Harris was pulled over by Officer William Wheetley due to an expired license plate tag. While questioning Harris, Officer Wheetley decided that Harris was acting suspicious and requested to search his car., to which Harris refused. After his denial, Officer Wheetley thought it would be appropriate to have his dog, Aldo, walk …show more content…
According to the Constitution, Officer Wheetley did not have any legal right to search Harris’ car prior to the walk about with Aldo. Once Aldo indicated that there may be drugs in the car, then a limited warrantless search was appropriate, which resulting in the finding of drugs. But was Aldo even needed in this situation? Officer Wheetley had no reason to suspect Harris of having drugs in his vehicle, except that he was acting suspicious, which should not be enough probable cause because thinking that someone is ‘acting suspicious’ can be subjective. Furthermore, the use of drug sniffing dogs in general has been questioned due to their inconsistency of detecting the drugs that they are trained to locate and apprehend in various
In his article Florida v. Harris: Turning Police Dogs into Search Warrants on a Leash, John Whitehead questions the intentions of both police officers and Supreme Court judges, who seem to be condoning and ruling in favor of unconstitutional searches of American citizens. The criteria for what qualifies as probable cause has now been left up to the judgement of an officer. With variance in why a search should be conducted, Americans are left in the dark when it comes to their own rights. Although the Constitution outlines these rights, their interpretations gets lost when the Supreme Court rules in the favor or those who seem to be abusing their power rather than using it to protect the American people. .
In 2006, Clayton Harris was pulled over by Officer William Wheetley due to an expired license plate tag. While questioning Harris, Officer Wheetley decided that Harris was acting suspicious and requested to search his car., to which Harris refused. After his denial, Officer Wheetley thought it would be appropriate to have his dog, Aldo, walk …show more content…
According to the Constitution, Officer Wheetley did not have any legal right to search Harris’ car prior to the walk about with Aldo. Once Aldo indicated that there may be drugs in the car, then a limited warrantless search was appropriate, which resulting in the finding of drugs. But was Aldo even needed in this situation? Officer Wheetley had no reason to suspect Harris of having drugs in his vehicle, except that he was acting suspicious, which should not be enough probable cause because thinking that someone is ‘acting suspicious’ can be subjective. Furthermore, the use of drug sniffing dogs in general has been questioned due to their inconsistency of detecting the drugs that they are trained to locate and apprehend in various