Florida v. Jardines
| Florida v. Jardines | |
|---|---|
|
|
| Argued October 31, 2012 Decided March 26, 2013 |
|
| Full case name | State of Florida, Petitioner v. Joelis Jardines, Respondent |
| Docket nos. | 11-564 |
| Citations | 569 U.S. ___ (more)
133 S. Ct. 1409
185 L.Ed.2d 495 (2013) |
| Prior history |
evid. suppressed at trial;
reversed, 9 So.3d 1 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008); , 73 So.3d 34, (Fla. S. Ct. 2011); rehearing denied, unpubl. order, (Fla. S. Ct. 2011); cert. granted, Docket 11-564 (6 Jan 2012). |
| Holding | |
| The government's use of trained police dogs to investigate the home and its immediate surroundings is a "search" within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment. Supreme Court of Florida affirmed. | |
| Court membership | |
| Case opinions | |
| Majority | Scalia, joined by Thomas, Ginsburg, Sotomayor, Kagan |
| Concurrence | Kagan, joined by Ginsburg, Sotomayor |
| Dissent | Alito, joined by Roberts, Kennedy, Breyer |
| Laws applied | |
| U.S. Const. amend. IV | |
Florida v. Jardines, 569 U.S. ___ (2013), is a decision by the United States Supreme Court which held 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.
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 others, had supported Florida's argument that this 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 considers the deployment of a police dog at the front door of a private residence to be another matter altogether.
On November 3, 2006, an anonymous, unverified tip was given to the Miami-Dade Police Department through its "crime stoppers" 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 stand-by positions as backup units.
...
Wikipedia