Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Florida V Jardines

    Uploaded by

    Charisse Christianne Yu Cabanlit
    87 views2 pages
    The police received an anonymous tip that Jardines was growing marijuana in his home. Acting on the tip, two detectives brought a drug-detection dog to Jardines' front door without a warrant. The dog alerted to the presence of drugs. The police then obtained a search warrant and found marijuana in Jardines' home. The Supreme Court affirmed that using a drug-detection dog at the front door was an unreasonable search under the Fourth Amendment as it constituted a physical intrusion into the curtilage of the home. The area immediately surrounding a home, including the front porch, is considered part of the home and therefore protected from warrantless searches and seizures.

    Original Description:

    Original Title

    Florida v Jardines

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    The police received an anonymous tip that Jardines was growing marijuana in his home. Acting on the tip, two detectives brought a drug-detection dog to Jardines' front door without a warrant. The dog alerted to the presence of drugs. The police then obtained a search warrant and found marijuana in Jardines' home. The Supreme Court affirmed that using a drug-detection dog at the front door was an unreasonable search under the Fourth Amendment as it constituted a physical intrusion into the curtilage of the home. The area immediately surrounding a home, including the front porch, is considered part of the home and therefore protected from warrantless searches and seizures.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    87 views2 pages

    Florida V Jardines

    Uploaded by

    Charisse Christianne Yu Cabanlit
    The police received an anonymous tip that Jardines was growing marijuana in his home. Acting on the tip, two detectives brought a drug-detection dog to Jardines' front door without a warrant. The dog alerted to the presence of drugs. The police then obtained a search warrant and found marijuana in Jardines' home. The Supreme Court affirmed that using a drug-detection dog at the front door was an unreasonable search under the Fourth Amendment as it constituted a physical intrusion into the curtilage of the home. The area immediately surrounding a home, including the front porch, is considered part of the home and therefore protected from warrantless searches and seizures.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    Floride v.

    Jardines

    FACTS:

     In this case, an unverified tip that was received by the police claiming that
    the residence of the respondent Jardines was being used to grow marijuana.
    Acting on the tip and ascertaining that no one was home, two detectives
    went brought a drug-detection dog to the front door.
     From outside the front door, the dog gave a “positive alert for narcotics”.
     That same day, the police department applied for, received, and executed a
    warrant to search Jardines’ home on the basis of the dog’s alert. The
    warranted search uncovered marijuana plants and Jardines was charged with
    trafficking in cannibis.
     Jardines moved to suppress the marijuana plants at trial on the ground that
    the canine investigation was an unreasonable search.
     The trial court granted the motion.
     However, the appellate court reversed, holding that a dog sniff does not
    constitute a 4th Amendment search because it “detects only contraband, and
    because no one has a “legitimate” privacy interest in contraband.
     Florida SC quashed the appellate court’s decision and sustained the trial
    court’s. It stated that the “warrantless sniff test conducted at the front door
    of the residence was an unreasonable government intrusion into the sanctity
    of the home and violated the 4th Amendment.

    ISSUE: W/N the act of the policemen in conducting a warrantless search at the
    front door of Jardines with the aid of a drug-detection dog constitutes search within
    the meaning of the 4th Amendment

    HELD:

     Yes. The SC US affirmed the ruling of the trial court. It held that
    “government’s use of trained police dogs to investigate the home and its
    surroundings is a “search” within the meaning of the 4th Amendment.
     It made some significant pronouncements:
    - The 4th Amendment which protects the “right of the people to be secure in
    their persons, houses, papers and effects against unreasonable searches
    and seizures”, establishes a simple baseline: When “the Government
    obtains information by PHYSICALLY INTRUDING” on persons, houses,
    papers or effects, “a search” within the original meaning of the 4 th
    Amendment” has been “undoubtedly occurred.”
     The officers gathered information in an area belonging to Jardines and
    immediately surrounding his house, and which enjoys protection as part of
    the house itself. They gathered the information by PHYSICALLY ENTERING
    and OCCUPYING the area to engage in conduct not explicitly or implicitly
    permitted by the homeowner. That the officers learned what they learned
    only by physically intruding on Jardine’s property to gather evidence is
    enough to establish that a search occurred.
     At the very core stands “the right of a man to retreat into his own home and
    there be free from unreasonable governmental intrusion”. This right would be
    of little practical value if the State’s agents could stand in a home’s porch or
    side garden and trawl for evidence with impunity; the right to retreat would
    be significantly diminished if the police could enter a man’s property to
    observe his repose from outside the front window.
     The area “immediately surrounding and associated with the home, “called the
    curtilage, is “part of the home itself for the 4th Amendment purposes.”
     The “curtilage” is intimately linked to the home, both physically and
    psychologically, and is where “privacy expectations are most heightened.”

    You might also like