Florida Vs. Jardines

Florida vs. Jardines

 There will always be question as to whether a dogs reaction will count as probable cause.

 The fourth amendment states that the police must have a search warrant in order to search a private residence.

 Detective was away from the scene in order to secure the search warrant. The search warrant was not secured until about an hour later.

• Kyllo v. United States: held that the use of a thermal imaging device from a public vantage point to monitor the radiation of heat from a person's home was a "search" within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment, and thus required a warrant. Because the police in this case did not have a warrant, the Court reversed Kyllo's conviction for growing marijuana.

 Kyllo v. United States case, when the court said using a thermal device when you’re standing outside of a house counts as a search.

 The Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that the thermal imaging of Kyllo's home constituted a search. Since the police did not have a warrant when they used the device, which was not commonly available to the public, the search was presumptively unreasonable and therefore unconstitutional.

 Let’s say that the dog is being looked at like one of the thermal detection devices; if you think of where the device is being deployed, does the cop have the right to be at that place?

 If you call the dog sniff a search you have to say what justifies the case.

• United States v. Place/ Illinois v. Cabelles/ City of Indianapolis v. Edmond:

 Not at private residency

 Lower expectations of the fourth amendment right

 Jardines