Florida v. Jardines

Supreme Court of the United States
569 U.S. 1 (2013)

ELI5:

Rule of Law:

The use of a trained police dog to investigate a home and its immediate surroundings (curtilage) constitutes a 'search' within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment because it involves a physical intrusion onto a constitutionally protected area for the purpose of obtaining information.

Facts:

In 2006, the Miami-Dade Police Department received an unverified tip that Joelis Jardines was growing marijuana in his home.
One month later, police officers conducted surveillance on Jardines' home for fifteen minutes but observed no activity.
Detective Douglas Bartelt, a trained canine handler, then approached Jardines' front porch with his drug-sniffing dog.
On the porch, the dog began exploring energetically and sniffing the base of the front door.
The dog then sat down, which was its trained signal indicating it had detected the odor of narcotics.
This positive alert from the dog was the basis upon which the police then sought and obtained a search warrant for the home.

Procedural Posture:

Joelis Jardines was charged with trafficking in cannabis in a Florida trial court.
Jardines filed a motion to suppress the evidence, which the trial court granted, finding the canine investigation to be an unreasonable search.
The State appealed to the Florida Third District Court of Appeal (an intermediate appellate court), which reversed the trial court's suppression order.
Jardines petitioned the Florida Supreme Court (the state's highest court) for review.
The Florida Supreme Court quashed the decision of the intermediate appellate court and approved the trial court's decision to suppress the evidence.
The State of Florida successfully petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari.

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

Does the use of a trained drug-sniffing dog by police on the front porch of a private home to investigate the contents of the home constitute a 'search' under the Fourth Amendment?

Opinions:

Majority - Justice Scalia

Yes, using a trained drug-sniffing dog on a homeowner's porch to investigate the contents of the home is a search within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment. The home and its curtilage, such as the front porch, are at the core of Fourth Amendment protection. The government's physical intrusion into this constitutionally protected area for the purpose of gathering information constitutes a search. While there is an implied social license for visitors to approach a front door, this license is limited to specific purposes, like knocking on the door. It does not extend to bringing a trained police dog to conduct a forensic investigation, as this action exceeds the scope of any customary invitation and is objectively a search.

Concurring - Justice Kagan

Yes, this was a search. While agreeing with the majority's property-based reasoning, the same conclusion is reached under the reasonable expectation of privacy doctrine from Katz v. United States. A drug-sniffing dog is a sense-enhancing instrument not in general public use, and deploying it to explore details of a home that would otherwise be unknowable invades a heightened expectation of privacy. Under the precedent of Kyllo v. United States, which found the use of a thermal imager to scan a home to be a search, the use of a highly trained drug-detection dog to investigate a home is also a search because it reveals information from within a private space that police could not otherwise obtain without physical intrusion.

Dissenting - Justice Alito

No, this was not a search. The majority invents a new rule of trespass law that has no historical basis. The common law provides an implied license for the public, including police, to approach a home's front door, and this license is not contingent on the visitor's purpose. Bringing a leashed dog, a common practice for centuries, does not exceed the scope of this license. Furthermore, there is no reasonable expectation of privacy in odors that emanate from a home and are detectable from a lawful public vantage point. A resident cannot reasonably expect that odors detectable by a dog will remain private.

Analysis:

This decision revitalized the property-based, trespass theory of the Fourth Amendment, establishing it as a baseline protection that exists alongside the 'reasonable expectation of privacy' test from Katz. It creates a strong legal boundary at the home's curtilage, making it clear that a physical intrusion for investigative purposes is a search, regardless of the sophistication of the technology or method used. By focusing on the physical trespass, the Court provided a 'firm' and 'bright' line, limiting the ability of law enforcement to use investigative tools on private residential property without a warrant, even if those tools only detect contraband.

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Florida v. Jardines (2013)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"

Premium Feature