On March 26, 2013, the Supreme Court decided Florida v. Jardines, affirming the Florida Supreme Court’s 5-4
decision that a dog
sniff at the front door of a house where the police suspected drugs were being
grown constitutes a search for purposes of the Fourth Amendment.[1] This case follows closely behind Florida
v. Harris, where the Court in February ruled that an alert from a
well-trained narcotics detection dog certified to detect illegal contraband is
sufficient to establish probable cause for the search of a vehicle, reversing
the Florida Supreme Court.[2]
The decision in that case was
unanimous.
At trial, Jardines
moved to suppress the marijuana plants on the ground that the canine
investigation was an unreasonable search.
The trial court granted the motion, and the Florida Third District Court
of Appeal reversed. On a petition
for discretionary review, the Florida Supreme Court quashed the decision of the
Third District Court of Appeal and approved the trial court's decision to
suppress, holding that the use of the trained narcotics dog to investigate
Jardines' home was a Fourth Amendment search unsupported by probable cause,
rendering invalid the warrant based upon information gathered in that search.[3]
Justice Scalia's
majority opinion, joined by Justices Kagan, Thomas, Ginsburg and Sotomayor, did
not focus on the right to privacy,
which is implicated by most modern-day Fourth Amendment cases. Rather, the
decision hinged on the basis of a citizen's property
rights. It followed the 2012 precedent from United
States v. Jones, that when police physically intrude on persons,
houses, papers, or effects for the purpose of obtaining information, "a
'search' within the original meaning of the Fourth Amendment" has
"undoubtedly occurred." The
Court held that the curtilage may not be used by a canine officer to sniff for marijuana and relied on long-standing
rules regarding cartilage. Scalia
used the analogies of a "visitor exploring the front path with a metal
detector", or allowing police to "peer into the house through
binoculars with impunity" to illustrate such activities that are not implicitly licensed by the
homeowner, which would constitute a trespass under.
Scalia also determined that it was unnecessary to address whether or not
Jardines' privacy was impacted.
Justice
Kagan, joined by Justices Ginsburg and Sotomayor, added to the binoculars
example to argue further that both property and privacy rights are equally implicated. "A stranger comes to the front
door of your home carrying super-high-powered binoculars. He doesn't knock or
say hello. Instead, he stands on the porch and uses the binoculars to peer
through your windows, into your home's furthest corners. ... Has your 'visitor'
trespassed on your property, exceeding the license you have granted to members
of the public...? Yes, he has. And has he also invaded your 'reasonable
expectation of privacy'...? Yes, of course, he has done that too. That case is
this case in every way that matters." The concurring opinion stated the controlling case
supporting this position was Kyllo v. United States, the previously
decided case involving the use of a thermal imaging device. [4]
The
dissent found no support in the common law for the majority’s conclusion that
the police conduct here constituted a trespass. The dissent pointed out
that the majority acknowledged that the public, including the police, have
license to approach the front door. The dissenters also did not view the
dog sniff as invading any reasonable expectation of privacy given that one can
expect that odors will drift outside of a house and, possibly, into public
areas where there is no question a dog could sniff for evidence of drugs
without constituting a search.
Justice’s
Kagan’s concurring opinion seems to be more attenuated with the reality of what
Jardines is all about. Does a person have a reasonable
expectation of privacy inside of their home? That is essentially a no brainer and is backed by case
precedent. A canine dog is a tool
utilized by the police to obtain probable cause to search an area. The issue at heart is where may the
canine dog do this? The answer is governed
by the answer to whether the searched item has a reasonable expectation of
privacy where the canine dog is sniffing, like a vehicle on a public highway. The home is private property where
there is a reasonable expectation that the government should not simply be able
to approach your home and use an extrasensory tool without probable cause.
Diana Cobo
Junior
Blog Editor, Criminal Law Brief
[1] Florida v. Jardines, No. 11-564, 2013 BL 79684 (U.S. Mar. 26, 2013); see link http://www2.bloomberglaw.com/desktop/public/document/FLORIDA_v_JARDINES_No_11564_2013_BL_79684_US_Mar_26_2013_Court_Op
[2] Florida v. Harris, No. 11-817, 2013 BL 42777 (U.S. Feb. 19, 2013); see link http://www2.bloomberglaw.com/desktop/public/document/Florida_v_Harris_No_11817_2013_BL_41063_US_Feb_19_2013_Court_Opin/1
[3] Jardines v. State of Florida, 73 So. 3d
34 (Fla.
2011); see link http://www2.bloomberglaw.com/desktop/public/document/Jardines_v_State_73_So_3d_34_Fla_2011_Court_Opinion
[4] Kyllo v. United States, 533 U.S. 27 (2001); see
link: http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=15840045591115721227&q=kyllo+v.+united+states&hl=en&as_sdt=2,21&as_vis=1
This blog Info is fabulous; I must wanna see best more from your writers. online criminal search
ReplyDeletevery informative article. florida marijuana growing license
ReplyDeleteThe dissent pointed out that the majority acknowledged that the public, including the police, have license to approach the front door. Florida medical marijuana attorneys
ReplyDelete