What Happens After Jardines? Abby Stout

Fourth Amendement Facts of Jardines Majority Opinion Minority Opinion Interpretation Implication Conclusion

“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.” - Amendment IV

Florida v. Jardines (2013) Unverified “crime stoppers” tip (received 11/03/06) led police to home of Jardines (on 12/06/06) Dog handler and dog approached front door of home Dog signaled that it detected scent of narcotics and detective Police then got a warrant Searched house and seized marijuana Charged and arrested Jardines Trial Court ruled to suppress evidence seized in home —> State Appellate Court reversed —> Florida Supreme Court reversed —> US Supreme Court ruled 5-4 to uphold Florida Supreme Court decision

Majority Opinion Written by Scalia Front porch is a part of home itself for 4th amendment purposes Police cannot go beyond scope of what would be an ordinary citizen’s invitation need broader license than general public has Granted cert limited to question of whether the officers’ behavior was a search within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment Determination: Officers gathered information by entering an area to engage in conduct not explicitly or implicitly permitted by the homeowner (dog sniff)

Concurring Opinion Written by Kagan (Ginsburg and Sotomayor also concurred) Privacy issue in addition to property issue Stated people have heightened expectation of privacy in and immediately surrounding homes Police used device (drug-sniffing dog) not in public use

Minority Opinion Written by Alito (Roberts, Kennedy, Breyer also dissented) Stated majority’s interpretation was not based on precedent Officers followed correct protocol at door (“knock and talk”), thus there is nothing wrong with their procedure Plain smell - one of the detectives also smelled marijuana (sensitivity to smell should be a non-issue because smells are available to public)

Argument Interpretation Narrow vs broad view Privacy: Katz v. United States - reasonable expectation of privacy test Objective purpose test of officer Government use of device: Kyllo v. United States

What does this mean? Implications Fourth amendment rights expand Curtilage principle is upheld and reaffirmed Dog sniff around house is considered search and is not permissible

Implications [for policing] Significant implications about procedure and use of dogs Important that law enforcement has a clear idea of curtilage and what is or is not allowed in certain spaces Changes what is acceptable for probable cause (changes methods of policing for getting warrants)

Conclusion Landmark Case Overturns Precedent Major Implications - Opens up the door Much still left to be seen

Florida v. Jardines. 569. U.S. Supreme Court. 26 Mar. 2013. Print. References Florida v. Jardines. 569. U.S. Supreme Court. 26 Mar. 2013. Print.