This HTML5 document contains 184 embedded RDF statements represented using HTML+Microdata notation.

The embedded RDF content will be recognized by any processor of HTML5 Microdata.

Namespace Prefixes

PrefixIRI
dctermshttp://purl.org/dc/terms/
yago-reshttp://yago-knowledge.org/resource/
n26https://scholar.google.com/
dbohttp://dbpedia.org/ontology/
n20http://dbpedia.org/resource/File:
foafhttp://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/
n16http://www.bloomberglaw.com/public/document/
n13https://global.dbpedia.org/id/
n25http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/
n19https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/820744/florida-v-harris/
yagohttp://dbpedia.org/class/yago/
dbthttp://dbpedia.org/resource/Template:
n7https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/568/237/
rdfshttp://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#
freebasehttp://rdf.freebase.com/ns/
n24http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/florida-v-harris/
n17http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:FilePath/
rdfhttp://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#
n23https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/
owlhttp://www.w3.org/2002/07/owl#
wikipedia-enhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
dbphttp://dbpedia.org/property/
dbchttp://dbpedia.org/resource/Category:
provhttp://www.w3.org/ns/prov#
xsdhhttp://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#
wikidatahttp://www.wikidata.org/entity/
n22https://www.supremecourt.gov/Search.aspx%3FFileName=/docketfiles/
dbrhttp://dbpedia.org/resource/

Statements

Subject Item
dbr:Rodriguez_v._United_States
dbo:wikiPageWikiLink
dbr:Florida_v._Harris
Subject Item
dbr:Detection_dog
dbo:wikiPageWikiLink
dbr:Florida_v._Harris
Subject Item
dbr:List_of_United_States_Supreme_Court_cases_by_the_Roberts_Court
dbo:wikiPageWikiLink
dbr:Florida_v._Harris
Subject Item
dbr:United_States_v._Place
dbo:wikiPageWikiLink
dbr:Florida_v._Harris
Subject Item
dbr:Police_dog
dbo:wikiPageWikiLink
dbr:Florida_v._Harris
Subject Item
dbr:568_U.S._237
dbo:wikiPageWikiLink
dbr:Florida_v._Harris
dbo:wikiPageRedirects
dbr:Florida_v._Harris
Subject Item
dbr:Florida_V_Harris
dbo:wikiPageWikiLink
dbr:Florida_v._Harris
dbo:wikiPageRedirects
dbr:Florida_v._Harris
Subject Item
dbr:Florida_v._Harris
rdf:type
owl:Thing dbo:Case yago:WikicatUnitedStatesSupremeCourtCasesOfTheRobertsCourt yago:WikicatUnitedStatesSupremeCourtCases yago:Abstraction100002137 yago:YagoPermanentlyLocatedEntity yago:PsychologicalFeature100023100 yago:Case107308889 wikidata:Q2334719 dbo:LegalCase dbo:UnitOfWork yago:Event100029378 yago:Happening107283608 dbo:SupremeCourtOfTheUnitedStatesCase
rdfs:label
Florida v. Harris
rdfs:comment
Florida v. Harris, 568 U.S. 237 (2013), was a case in which the United States Supreme Court addressed the reliability of a dog sniff by a detection dog trained to identify narcotics, under the specific context of whether law enforcement's assertions that the dog is trained or certified is sufficient to establish probable cause for a search of a vehicle under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Harris was the first Supreme Court case to challenge the dog's reliability, backed by data that asserts that on average, up to 80% of a dog's alerts are wrong. Twenty-four U.S. States, the federal government, and two U.S. territories filed briefs in support of Florida as amici curiae.
foaf:name
State of Florida v. Clayton Harris
foaf:depiction
n17:WI_Police_Dog.jpg
dcterms:subject
dbc:United_States_Supreme_Court_cases dbc:United_States_Supreme_Court_cases_of_the_Roberts_Court dbc:United_States_privacy_case_law dbc:United_States_Fourth_Amendment_case_law dbc:Search_and_seizure_case_law dbc:United_States_controlled_substances_case_law dbc:Detection_dogs dbc:2013_in_United_States_case_law
dbo:wikiPageID
37509268
dbo:wikiPageRevisionID
1113555642
dbo:wikiPageWikiLink
dbr:Oklahoma dbc:2013_in_United_States_case_law dbr:Search_warrant dbr:L._Ed._2d dbr:Idaho dbr:Muriatic_acid dbr:Texas dbr:Arizona dbr:Florida_First_District_Court_of_Appeal dbr:Utah dbr:Colorado dbr:Michigan dbr:Methamphetamine dbr:Sydney,_Australia dbr:Law_enforcement dbr:Virginia dbr:Police_dog dbr:Miranda_rights dbr:Kyllo_v._United_States dbr:Alabama dbr:Probable_cause dbr:Ombudsman dbr:Maine dbr:Detection_dog dbr:Liberty_County,_Florida dbr:Nebraska dbr:Florida_v._Jardines dbr:Illinois dbr:List_of_United_States_Supreme_Court_cases,_volume_568 dbr:North_Dakota dbr:Supreme_Court_of_Florida n20:WI_Police_Dog.jpg dbr:So.2d dbr:Pennsylvania dbr:New_Mexico dbr:So.3d dbr:Florida_Department_of_Law_Enforcement dbr:Rutherford_Institute dbr:Kansas dbr:New_Jersey dbr:Delaware dbr:Rodriguez_v._United_States dbr:Minimally_invasive_warrantless_search dbc:United_States_Supreme_Court_cases dbc:United_States_Supreme_Court_cases_of_the_Roberts_Court dbr:Katz_v._United_States dbr:Search_and_seizure dbr:American_Civil_Liberties_Union dbr:United_States_of_America dbr:Vermont dbr:Antifreeze dbr:United_States_v._Place dbc:United_States_privacy_case_law dbr:National_Association_of_Criminal_Defense_Lawyers dbr:Per_curiam dbr:Pseudoephedrine dbr:Sui_generis dbc:United_States_Fourth_Amendment_case_law dbr:Amicus_curiae dbr:Indiana dbr:United_States_v._Karo dbr:Washington_(state) dbr:Totality_of_the_circumstances dbr:Electronic_Privacy_Information_Center dbc:United_States_controlled_substances_case_law dbr:U.S._LEXIS dbr:Certiorari dbr:Amici_curiae dbc:Search_and_seizure_case_law dbr:Illinois_v._Caballes dbr:Wisconsin dbr:Illinois_v._Gates dbr:Payton_v._New_York dbc:Detection_dogs dbr:United_States_Supreme_Court dbr:Australia dbr:Fourth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution dbr:New_South_Wales dbr:Aguilar–Spinelli_test dbr:Puerto_Rico dbr:Guam dbr:Narcotics dbr:Writ_of_certiorari dbr:Missouri dbr:Institute_for_Justice dbr:Latex_glove dbr:Iodine dbr:Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States dbr:City_of_Indianapolis_v._Edmond dbr:Oregon
dbo:wikiPageExternalLink
n16:Harris_v_State_71_So_3d_756_Fla_2011_Court_Opinion n7: n22:11-817.htm n23:11-817_5if6.pdf n19: n24: n25:getcase.pl%3Fcourt=us&vol=000&invol=11-817 n26:scholar_case%3Fhl=en&case=180806905525458364 n26:scholar_case%3Fcase=16921239878556783842
owl:sameAs
freebase:m.0nbvdns n13:4jJK1 wikidata:Q5461761 yago-res:Florida_v._Harris
dbp:wikiPageUsesTemplate
dbt:Reflist dbt:Caselaw_source dbt:Ussc dbt:Infobox_SCOTUS_case dbt:Quote dbt:SCOTUS_oral_arguments dbt:Sfnp dbt:Cite_court
dbo:thumbnail
n17:WI_Police_Dog.jpg?width=300
dbp:docket
11
dbp:joinmajority
unanimous
dbp:lawsapplied
dbr:Fourth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
dbp:parallelcitations
172800.0
dbp:prior
25920.0
dbp:uspage
237
dbp:usvol
568
dbp:arguedate
0001-10-31
dbp:argueyear
2012
dbp:case
Florida v. Harris,
dbp:courtlistener
n19:
dbp:decidedate
0001-02-19
dbp:decideyear
2013
dbp:findlaw
n25:getcase.pl%3Fcourt=us&vol=000&invol=11-817
dbp:fullname
State of Florida v. Clayton Harris
dbp:holding
If a bona fide organization has certified a dog after testing his reliability in a controlled setting, or if the dog has recently and successfully completed a training program that evaluated his proficiency, a court can presume that the dog's alert provides probable cause to search, using a "totality-of-the-circumstances" approach.
dbp:justia
n7:
dbp:litigants
Florida v. Harris
dbp:majority
Kagan
dbp:otherSource
Supreme Court
dbp:otherUrl
n23:11-817_5if6.pdf
dbo:abstract
Florida v. Harris, 568 U.S. 237 (2013), was a case in which the United States Supreme Court addressed the reliability of a dog sniff by a detection dog trained to identify narcotics, under the specific context of whether law enforcement's assertions that the dog is trained or certified is sufficient to establish probable cause for a search of a vehicle under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Harris was the first Supreme Court case to challenge the dog's reliability, backed by data that asserts that on average, up to 80% of a dog's alerts are wrong. Twenty-four U.S. States, the federal government, and two U.S. territories filed briefs in support of Florida as amici curiae. Oral argument in this case – and that of another dog sniff case, Florida v. Jardines – was heard on October 31, 2012. The Court unanimously held that if a bona fide organization has certified a dog after testing his reliability in a controlled setting, or if the dog has recently and successfully completed a training program that evaluated his proficiency, a court can presume (subject to any conflicting evidence offered) that the dog's alert provides probable cause to search, using a "totality-of-the-circumstances" approach.
dbp:googlescholar
n26:scholar_case%3Fcase=16921239878556783842
prov:wasDerivedFrom
wikipedia-en:Florida_v._Harris?oldid=1113555642&ns=0
dbo:wikiPageLength
33259
foaf:isPrimaryTopicOf
wikipedia-en:Florida_v._Harris
Subject Item
dbr:Florida_v._Jardines
dbo:wikiPageWikiLink
dbr:Florida_v._Harris
Subject Item
dbr:Florida_V._Harris
dbo:wikiPageWikiLink
dbr:Florida_v._Harris
dbo:wikiPageRedirects
dbr:Florida_v._Harris
Subject Item
dbr:Florida_v_Harris
dbo:wikiPageWikiLink
dbr:Florida_v._Harris
dbo:wikiPageRedirects
dbr:Florida_v._Harris
Subject Item
dbr:Illinois_v._Caballes
dbo:wikiPageWikiLink
dbr:Florida_v._Harris
Subject Item
dbr:Totality_of_the_circumstances
dbo:wikiPageWikiLink
dbr:Florida_v._Harris
Subject Item
wikipedia-en:Florida_v._Harris
foaf:primaryTopic
dbr:Florida_v._Harris