Sunday, January 13, 2019

Florida v. Jardines case brief

Florida v. Jardines case brief summary 

Detective Predraja received an unverified tip that weed was being grown in Jardines home. He took a drug dog there that sniffed the front porch. When he found the strongest odor point he sat by the front door. Predraja then filed and executed a search warrant. Search revealed weed plants

Katz: The officers were gathering info in an area belonging to Jardines and his curtilage

The home is the very core of 4th am. rights and the area immediately surrounding and associated with the home.

The front porch is a classic example of the area to which home life extends

Yes, it is a protected area

State: they had to right to walk up to the front door, even girl scouts do it

If someone is going up to someone’s door it is permissible to go knock, if they are not invited in they should leave

Scalia says that this is a trespass on the home.  A knocker does not have an invitation to engage in canine forensic investigation.  Their objective behavior was to conduct a search, which is not what anyone would think they had a license to do

Scalia focuses on the purpose  -- Scalia references Jones

When the government obtains information by physically intruding on the persons, houses, papers, or effects constitutes a search

CONCURRING: similar to Kyllo: the officers used a device (the dog) not in general public use to explore details of a home

DISSENT: a reasonable person can expect odors to be smelled from outside

The search of walking up to the door and back took about a minute or two

There is no case law to back up the unlawfulness of walking to a door with a dog on a leash 

Difference from King

They used a “device” to smell the weed and the human didn’t initially, rather than a human who smelled the weed


1 comment:

  1. "The Court held that the front porch of a home is part of the home itself for Fourth Amendment purposes. Typically, ordinary citizens are invited to enter onto the porch, either explicitly or implicitly, to communicate with the house's occupants. Police officers, however, cannot go beyond the scope of that invitation. Entering a person's porch for the purposes of conducting a search requires a broader license than the one commonly given to the general public. Without such a license, the police officers were conducting an unlawful search in violation of the Fourth Amendment."

    It's kind of lame that the cops think that they can go through your front gate and up to your porch and have their mutts sniff around and then get you on what you are doing in your OWN HOME!

    Thank you Justice Antonin Scalia for holding that: Entering a person's porch for the purposes of conducting a search requires a broader license than the one commonly given to the general public. Without such a license, the police officers were conducting an unlawful search in violation of the Fourth Amendment.

    Sadly, this was a 5-4 holding. It's scary to think of what would have happened if this one went the other way.

    Can you say "POLICE STATE?"

    ReplyDelete

Search Thousands of Case Briefs and Articles.