Abstract

This article develops in four parts. Part II of this article explores the historical evolution of Supreme Court caselaw and the Court’s recent decision in Florida v. Harris.[1] This article attempts to enlighten the Court’s standard in Harris by looking to prior caselaw and discusses why courts should interpret the holding in a way that allows defendants to challenge the legitimacy and accuracy of training and certification programs. If applied incorrectly, Harris will violate the Fourth Amendment and allow searches to occur on less than probable cause. Part III reviews the fallibility of drug detection dogs and the diversity among training and certification programs. For the first time, this article addresses the most comprehensive, accurate and current data on the reliability of dog sniffs. Additionally, this article discusses the downfalls of relying too heavily on dog handler statistics and the pervasiveness of handler cues.

Part IV looks at the impact that unreliable dogs can have in other areas of criminal law and specifically focuses on the realms of criminal and civil asset forfeiture. To date, there has been no scholarly discussion on the consequences that can follow as a result of unfettered handlers who can establish probable cause by less than reliable means. Part V challenges the reliability of handlers and drug detection dogs and offers ways to combat these inadequacies. This article is the first to argue that in response to the current array of training and certification programs around the nation, a minimum uniform standard of certification should be implemented to ensure that canines are not abrogating constitutional rights. Finally, this article aims to close the gap between various training and certification programs at the state and federal level. This article is both timely and relevant, given the fact that two Supreme Court decisions that focus directly on the impact of drug detection dogs have been decided in the past year.

[1] 133 S. Ct. 1050 (2013).