FLORIDA v. JOELIS JARDINES, 569 U.S. ___ (March 26, 2013): ANALYSIS BY CHARLES WARE

www.CharlesJeromeWare.com
twitter.com/CharlesJWare
CharlesWare.blogspot.com
TheLawyersMailbox.blogspot.com
 
In the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS), No. 11-564, Florida, Petitioner v. Joelis Jardines, On Writ of Certiorari to the Supreme Court of Florida, March 26, 2013:
 
Question:  whether using a 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.
 
Court's Decision:  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.  
 

SYNOPSIS

 

Florida v. Jardines, 569 U.S. ___ (2013), is a decision by the United States Supreme Court holding that the use by police 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, requiring probable cause and a search warrant.

 

The Court's opinion in this 5-4 decision was delivered by Justice Antonin Scalia, and joined by four justices, while four other justices dissented. Justice Kagan, joined by Justice Sotomayor and Justice Ginsburg, filed a concurring opinion.
 
27 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.
 

Background

 

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.
 
As summarized by the written opinion of the District Court of Appeals:

"... the detective went to the home at 7 a.m. He watched the home for fifteen minutes. There were no vehicles in the driveway, the blinds were closed, and there was no observable activity."

 

After fifteen minutes, the dog handler arrived with the drug-detection dog, "Franky". The handler placed the dog on a leash and accompanied the dog up to the front door of the home. Franky alerted to the scent of contraband.

The handler told the detective that the dog had a positive alert for the odor of narcotics. The detective went up to the front door for the first time, and smelled marijuana. ... The detective prepared an affidavit and applied for a search warrant, which was issued. A search was conducted, which confirmed that marijuana was being grown inside the home. The defendant was arrested.

—Florida 3rd District Court of Appeal, State of Florida v. Jardines, 9 So.3d 1, 36–37 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008).

While the Miami-Dade narcotics detective was away from the scene in order to secure the search warrant, Federal DEA agents remained behind to maintain surveillance of Jardines' home. The search warrant was secured about an hour later, and was executed by officers from both agencies. The defendant was apprehended by a DEA agent as he attempted to flee through the rear door of the residence. [Attorney Charles Jerome Ware is renowned and consistently ranked among the best attorneys and legal counsellors in the United States. [GQ Magazine, The Washington Post, The Baltimore Sun, The Columbia Flier, USA TODAY, The Howard County Sun, The Anniston Star, The New York Times, et al.]]