Florida v. Jardines

Florida v. Jardines, 569 U.S. 1 (2013), is a Supreme Court of the United States case that ruled that police use of a trained detection dog to sniff for narcotics on the front porch of a private home is a "search" within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution , and therefore, without consent , requires both probable cause and a search warrant .

Police dog

In 2006, police in Miami, Florida received an anonymous tip that a home was being used as a marijuana grow house . They led a drug-sniffing police dog to the front door of the home, and the dog alerted at the front door to the scent of contraband. A search warrant was issued, which led to the arrest of the homeowner.

Twenty-seven U.S. states and the federal government, among other parties, had supported Florida's argument that the use of a police dog was an acceptable form of minimally invasive warrantless search .

In a 5–4 decision, the Court disagreed, despite three previous cases in which the Court had held that a dog sniff was not a search when deployed against luggage at an airport, against vehicles in a drug interdiction checkpoint and against vehicles during routine traffic stops. The Court made clear by this ruling that it considered the deployment of a police dog at the front door of a private residence to be a separate type of situation.

Contents

• 1 Background

• 2 Lower courts

  • 2.1 Previous dog-sniff cases

  • 2.2 Other relevant cases

  • 2.3 Dog sniff at a private residence

• 3 Supreme Court of the United States

  • 3.1 Questions presented

  • 3.2 Amicus curiae

  • 3.3 Arguments

  • 3.4 Decision

    • 3.4.1 Majority opinion

    • 3.4.2 Concurring opinion

    • 3.4.3 Dissenting opinion

• 4 See also

• 5 References

• 6 External links

Background

(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Florida_v._Jardines&action=edit&section=1 "Edit section: Background")

On November 3, 2006, an anonymous, unverified tip was given to the Miami-Dade Police Department through its crime-reporting tip line indicating that the residence of Joelis Jardines was being used as a marijuana grow house. About a month later, on December 6, 2006, two detectives and a drug-detection dog approached the residence while other officers of the Miami-Dade Police Department established perimeter positions around the residence, with agents of the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) in standby positions as backup units.

As summarized by the written opinion of the Florida Third District Court of Appeal :

... the detective went to the home at 7 a.m. He watched the home for fifteen minutes. There were no vehicles in the driveway, the blinds were closed, and there was no observable activity.

After fifteen minutes, the dog handler arrived with the drug-detection dog. The handler placed the dog on a leash and accompanied the dog up to the front door of the home. The dog alerted to the scent of contraband.

The handler told the detective that the dog had a positive alert for the odor of narcotics. The detective went up to the front door for the first time, and smelled marijuana. ... The detective prepared an affidavit and applied for a search warrant, which was issued. A search was conducted, which confirmed that marijuana was being grown inside the home. The defendant was arrested.

While the Miami-Dade narcotics detective was away from the scene in order to secure the search warrant , DEA agents remained behind to maintain surveillance of Jardines' home. The search warrant was secured about an hour later and was executed by officers from both agencies. The defendant was apprehended by a DEA agent as he attempted to flee through the rear door of the residence.

Lower courts

(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Florida_v._Jardines&action=edit&section=2 "Edit section: Lower courts")

Initially, the trial court granted the defendant's motion to suppress evidence that was obtained from his home, citing the authority of State of Florida v. Rabb. The state appealed that decision to suppress, and the Florida Third District Court of Appeal (DCA) reversed, while certifying a conflict with the earlier Rabb decision. Summarizing their reasoning, the DCA stated:

We do so because, first, a canine sniff is not a Fourth Amendment search; second, the officer and the dog were lawfully present at the defendant's front door; and third, the evidence seized would inevitably have been discovered.

The foundation for the principle that a canine sniff is not a Fourth Amendment search was derived from the Supreme Court's previous dog-sniff cases .

Jardines sought review in the Supreme Court of Florida based on the Rabb conflict. In a 5–2 decision rendered on April 14, 2011, the court sided with Jardines, ruling:

"We have said that the Fourth Amendment draws 'a firm line at the entrance to the house.' That line, we think, must be not only firm but also bright — which requires clear specification of those methods of surveillance that require a warrant." Given the special status accorded a citizen's home in Anglo-American jurisprudence, we hold that the warrantless "sniff test" that was conducted at the front door of the residence in the present case was an unreasonable government intrusion into the sanctity of the home and violated the Fourth Amendment. We quash the decision in Jardines and approve the result in Rabb.

The state filed a motion for rehearing, which the Supreme Court of Florida denied on July 7, 2011.

Previous dog-sniff cases

(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Florida_v._Jardines&action=edit&section=3 "Edit section: Previous dog-sniff cases")

In its written opinion, the Supreme Court of Florida referenced and analyzed the only three dog-sniff cases to have been heard by the Supreme Court of the United States. In the first, _United States v. Place _ (1983), the Court answered the question of whether police, based on reasonable suspicion, could temporarily seize a piece of luggage at an airport and then subject the luggage to a sniff test by a drug-detection dog. After the defendant's behavior at an airport attracted suspicion, police seized his luggage and subjected it to a sniff test, discovering cocaine inside. The Supreme Court concluded that the seizure, which lasted 90 minutes, was an impermissibly long Terry stop , but with respect to the dog sniff, the Court said that:

[A] canine sniff ... does not require opening the luggage. It does not expose noncontraband items that otherwise would remain hidden from public view, as does, for example, an officer's rummaging through the contents of the luggage. Thus, the manner ... is much less intrusive than a typical search. Moreover, the sniff discloses only the presence or absence of narcotics, a contra-band item. ... This limited disclosure also ensures that the owner of the property is not subjected to the embarrassment and inconvenience entailed in less discriminate and more intrusive investigative methods. In these respects, the canine sniff is _sui generis _. We are aware of no other investigative procedure that is so limited both in the manner in which the information is obtained and in the content of the information revealed

…