The Supreme Court has been thoroughly divided on many major issues, but probable cause isn’t one of them. When looked at within the context of the use of a drug-sniffing dog in a criminal case—is strict documentation of training required?—the justices ruled that with probable cause, it’s best to keep things fluid and considered in each instances unique context. Joining me to explain the case in question, Florida v. Harris, is Michael Zabel of Cozen O’Connor and From the Sidebar.
With Probable Cause and Drug-Sniffing Dogs, Supreme Court Would Rather Keep Things Fluid—Michael Zabel
