tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7536265591661518152.post3392730208529499700..comments2024-03-13T09:09:48.146-07:00Comments on Law School Case Briefs | Legal Outlines | Study Materials: Florida v. Jardines case briefLawSchoolCaseBriefs.nethttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16912283726092434270noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7536265591661518152.post-25246802416972412362020-05-08T01:01:31.862-07:002020-05-08T01:01:31.862-07:00"The Court held that the front porch of a hom..."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."<br /><br />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! <br /><br />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.<br /><br />Sadly, this was a 5-4 holding. It's scary to think of what would have happened if this one went the other way. <br /><br />Can you say "POLICE STATE?"Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com