1. What Happens After Jardines?
Abby Stout

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

3. “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

4. 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

5. 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)

6. 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

7. 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)

8. 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

9. 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

10. 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)

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

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