Arguments
Arguments against Harris:
1. The precedent Carroll v. United States establishes the exception for vehicle searches.
2. Under the certain circumstances of the case, probable cause for a warrant less search of the interior of the vehicle was given.
3. Even though police need a warrant to search private property, vehicle searches are one of them. If police have probable cause that there are drugs/contraband in the vehicle, they can search without a warrant.
2. Under the certain circumstances of the case, probable cause for a warrant less search of the interior of the vehicle was given.
3. Even though police need a warrant to search private property, vehicle searches are one of them. If police have probable cause that there are drugs/contraband in the vehicle, they can search without a warrant.
Arguments against State:
1. The dog was not trained to detect pseudoephedrine. Which is what was found in Harris's car. So police had no probable cause for a search of the interior of the car.
2. Harris also argued that the State had to prove the legitimacy of the drug detection dog's training. The State also needed to prove the dog's consistency with previous alerts.
3. No certification, or proof of the legitimacy/ qualification of the training agency, which trains dogs.
2. Harris also argued that the State had to prove the legitimacy of the drug detection dog's training. The State also needed to prove the dog's consistency with previous alerts.
3. No certification, or proof of the legitimacy/ qualification of the training agency, which trains dogs.