Dual-Court System and Roles of Courtroom Workgroup Assignment
Abstract
The two articles’s discussed in this paper address the court cases involving search and
seizure. The first piece examines the difficulties surrounding the use of canine searchs
in Florida v. Harris and Florida v. Jardines: Probable Cause and the Sniff Factor. The
author addresses the ramifications of using dogs as a basis for probable cause for
searches and seizures, including the dubious nature of their dependability and the
consequences of officers falsifying canine documentation in records. The second article,
“To sniff or not to sniff” focuses on the conflicting rulings made by the federal and state
governments about natural sense augmentation and whether or not they comply with
the fourth amendement. It follows situations that are comparable to those involving
canine units.
Dual-Court System and Roles of Courtroom Workgroup Assignment
Article Critique
Dogs have been utilized for criminal detection since the 1840’s, thanks to their
keen sense of hearing and scent. Now, a lot of law enforcement agencies have started
using their dogs in their investigations and have broadened their duties to include
narcotics and explosive detection, rescue operations, and other ways to support police
work. By closely analyzing two criminal instances, the author of this piece explores
whether canine units constitute a justifiable basis for establishing probable cause for
officers searches. Overall, the author makes a strong case for why courts ignore the
significance of dog training and records. The inaquedency of canine units as proof of
probable cause for search and seizure is called into question due their tendency to
make mistakes. However, given that the dog noses are sophisticated instruments that
can detect, identify, and even isolate particular components withing a scent, the author
fails to raise pertinent questions about whether or ot dog sniffs constitute an invasion of
privacy.
Article 1-Background
This article evaluates the court rulings in Florida v. Harris and Florida v. Jardines,
which held that the presence of trained dogs was sufficient justification for a probable
casue searhc under the Fourth Amendment. The court in Florida v. Harris was tasked
with deciding whether drug detention dog alerts constitute reasonable suspision for
conducting vehicle searches. The Supreme Court decided that adequate records of a
dogs training, alerts from trained dogs can be used to prove probable cause for a
search under the Fourth Amendment. In Florida v. Jardines, the court considered
Dual-Court System and Roles of Courtroom Workgroup Assignment
whether a homeowners porch counts as part of the home’s contents and if drug-
detecitng dogs violate an individuals right to privacy. The court ruled that using dogs for
searches is less invasive technique than having cops search someone, therefore it does
not violate someone’s constitutional rights.
Article 1 –Critique of Strengths and Weaknesses of the Article
Strengths
The court’s focus on these two cases is directed at the appropriate use of trained
dogs in varying situations and at the trust of these decisions is the issue of probable
cuase formation for the purpose of performing lawful search. Probable cause is different
that proof beyond reasonable doubt or preponderance of eveidnce which are standard
uses in formal trials. Proble cause does not require the degree of certainty that would be
requeired to establish proof of guilt or even to establish a fact by a preponderance of
evidence.
Weaknesses
The credentials of the dog and it’s handlers are crucial factros in assessing the
accuracy of the alerts the dog issues. Presenting these credentials and providing an
explanantion will show a judge what precislsy is needed to support a praobable cause
search under the fourth amendment. A dog that has been trained and certified to detect
certain stimuli and smells and when it alers in the field, it shows “fair probability that is
sufficent to establish probable cause for a search in accordance with the court’s
decision even though no dog is perfect.
Article 2 – Background
Dual-Court System and Roles of Courtroom Workgroup Assignment
In this article, it explores and reconcile the conflicts regarding the court’s
decisions involving drug-detection dogs. This article provides an overview of the fourth
amendment while looking at several cases that have helped define what constitutes a
search and emphazises on how the courts have moved away from protecting certain
areas specified in the fourth amendment.
Article 2 – Critique of Strengths and Weaknesses of the Article
Strengths
This article strength is that is talks about several cases that invovles the fourth
amendement and it talks about how “the use of dogs to detect narcotics in not an exact
science which concludes that there is no proof or it leads to conclude that whether or
not these dogs are reliable and accurate. Due to the lack training these dogs receive,
many agencies train them differently with simiilar techniques but it raises concerns on
the acuracy since not all of them are trained the same.
Weaknesses
The weakness of this article is that it failed to answer the main question which is
whether a dog sniff constitutes a search. It is still unclear if a dog sniff is only considered
a search when it occurs inside a home or if it should be treated differrently in other
situations like a traffic stop or public space like an airport.
Summary of Articles
Courts have revised their interprations of the fourth amendment, shifting their
focus from “constitutionally protected areas” to privacy. Originally, the Fourth
Amendment only sheileded houses and presonal belongings from arbituary searches
Dual-Court System and Roles of Courtroom Workgroup Assignment
and seizures, which included the curtial area. Katz v. United States was the case that
epanded the definiton of a seach as defined by the fouth amendment. The courts
created a test knows as “reasonable expectaiton of privacy test” which now has been
used by lower, state, and now majority of the US. Supreme Courts. Dogs have been
used for centuries in many ways and each dog has its own specialty when it comes to
them being used in law enforcement. The courts take different approches depending on
how the court defines a “dog sniff”.
Conclusion: Personal Reflection, Position, and Christian Worldview
The use of drug-sniffing dogs is an enhanced law enforcment tool and it
continues to be a source of contention among courts. The advantage of these dogs is
their superior sense of smell unlike that of humans which is a good benefit to police
officers in tryng to detect criminal activity.
In the video it states “the court systems will always be overburdened and that it is
a reminder that the legal system can never remove evil, it can only restrain it as people
reject self-government based upon biblical wisdom and justice we will see more laws,
less freedom and a judicial system overwhelmed”. I agree with that statmenet because
the laws are always changing.
Dual-Court System and Roles of Courtroom Workgroup Assignment
References
Ross, D. L. (2013). Probable Cause and the Sniff Factor: Florida v. Harris and Florida v.
Jardines. Criminal Justice Review, 38 (3), 412-422
Zanello, Linsday N. “To sniff or not to sniff: making sense of past and recent state and
federal decisions in connection with-detection dogs- where do we go from here?”
Albany Law Review, vol 78, no. 4 summer 2015, pp.
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
