Florida vs. Harris.
The Florida Supreme Court was wrong on reversing the Trial Court’s decision regarding the case of Florida vs. Harris. Evidence showed that Aldo was well trained and certified with good records of detecting drugs even when working with another officer which supported the dog’s reliability. Wheetley was also well trained in handling such case, and the state produced evidence of regular training. Harris admitted that he frequently cooked methamphetamine; thus there could be samples in the vehicle that the dog sniffed of which Wheetley could not see. According to the US military working with dog programs, the odor of a drug may be there in enough concentration that could make the dog respond even after they have been removed from the vehicle. So, if a dog responds, we should not assume that it made an error even when there are no drugs found (Patent, 2012).
Humanitarian law project vs. Holder
Again, in this case, the district court was wrong in their second decision. In the first case the terms proving “Personnel” and “Training” are unconstitutionally vague as they have a sense of ambiguity which will be hard for the citizens to understand its specific implications (Levanon, 2012). After the amendments in 2001, the terms “expert advice or assistance,” “training,” “personnel,” and “service” which were introduced became more clear and lost the sense of ambiguity and are easily understood on the grounds of objective definitions.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
United States vs. Jones
The court was right in reversing the case because by planting the tracker on the defendant’s jeep was a violation of the fourth amendment. The detective’s physically occupied private stuff or property to get information. The physical intrusion itself is a “search” which is within the provision of the Fourth Amendment after its adoption (Kerr, 2012). The law holds every man’s property as sacred; thus, no man is supposed to intrude into another man’s property without his consent; it will be trespassing even if he does no damage. This reasoning makes the government’s action of intruding into Jones’ property a violation of the amendment which proves the court’s decision right.
References
Kerr, O. S. (2012). The mosaic theory of the Fourth Amendment. Mich. L. Rev. , 111 , 311.
Levanon, L. (2012). Criminal prohibitions on membership in terrorist organizations. New Criminal Law Review: In International and Interdisciplinary Journal , 15 (2), 224-276.
Patent, D. H. (2012). Dogs on Duty: Soldiers' Best Friends on the Battlefield and Beyond . Bloomsbury Publishing USA.
