Police Dogs - Florida V. Jardines

Florida v. Jardines

Throughout the past years police officers have started to rely more and more on police dogs for searches containing drug use. Thus far the courts have been very sympathetic to this. But when does it come to the point of a search going too far? In the past the court has ruled that it is not a search, under the Fourth Amendment, if a police dog sniffs the exterior of luggage in an airport. This also applies to when an officer checks the outside of a vehicle they have stopped for a traffic violation . The court is now being forced to think about searches when it involves being outside of one’s home. In the case of Florida v. Jardines a police dog, Franky, had been brought up onto a porch to pursue a search, which led to a police officer retrieving a warrant to the home and finding illegal drugs . The biggest question we are now faced with is whether the use of Franky on the porch is a search and would then violate the Fourth Amendment.

This situation started on November 3rd, 2006, when the Drug Enforcement Agency received an anonymous tip that a home was being used as a marijuana grow house . Without checking if the tip was reliable and before getting a warrant police officer, William Pedraja, went to the home on December 6, 2006, and proceeded to watch the house2. While watching the house he found that all the blinds were closed and the air conditioner continuously ran, indicating a continuous heat inside2. From here Officer Pedraja walked up to the house and proceeded to knock several times. There was no answer; however, the officer says to have smelt marijuana3. After fifteen minutes of watching and no response from the residents, another officer was called to bring a police dog, Franky, to the home2. Franky went onto the porch, sniffed, and then sat down. The action by Franky is an alert to the odor of marijuana coming from under the door2. Police used this to get a warrant, where the suspicions were confirmed with the findings of marijuana in the home2. The owner of the home, Joelis Jardines, was charged with illegally growing marijuana2. From here Jardines pushed to block the results of the search, claiming a violation of his right of privacy at home was violated under the Fourth Amendment2. Now that the case has reached U.S. Supreme Court the issues involved are whether the use of Franky on the porch was a search, and whether the officers’ conduct in watching the house was also a search under the Fourth Amendment2. However, the Justices only granted review for the search issue involving Franky2.

With Jardines unhappy with how the situation was handled, the case of Florida v. Jardines began. As stated earlier, Jardines felt that the police bringing the dog onto his property was violating his Fourth Amendment of privacy and a warrant was needed to go fourth with this action. The state felt that no warrant was needed because they are not disrupting anything