Florida v Jardines - Case Brief PDF

Preview

Summary

Case Brief...

Description

Kara Chrispen CJS 305-01

Florida v. Jardines 569 U.S., 133 S. Ct. 1409, 185 L. Ed. 2d 495 (2013) FACTS: Detective Williams Pedraja received an unverified tip that marijuana was being grown in the home of Joelis Jardines. One month later the department of DEA sent surveillance team to Jardines home. The watched the home or 15 minutes and there was not activity around the home and could not see inside the home. The detective then approached the home accompanied by another detective with a trained K9. When the K9 reached the door he sensed an odor and being exploring the area. He gave the K9 as much distance that was safe to try and find the source. After sniffing the base of the front door the dog sat down which is the trained behavior upon discovering the odors strongest point. The detecting pulled the dog away from the door and informed Detective Pedraja that there had been a positive alert for narcotics. Pedraja then applied for a warrant and received one. When the warrant was executed later that day, Jardines attempted to flee and was arrested. The search revealed marijuana plants and he was charged with trafficking cannabis. Jardines moved to suppress the marijuana plants on the ground that the K9 investigation was an unreasonable search. The trial court granted the motion, the Florida Supreme Court approved the trial court’s decision to suppress, holding that the use of the dog to investigate Jardine’s home was a Fourth Amendment search unsupported by probable cause, rendering invalid the warrant based upon information gathered in that search. QUESTION: Was the K9 search occurring at the curtilage of a home before a warrant unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment? YES OPINION: Scalia 1. When the government obtains information by physically intruding on persons, houses, papers, or effects, a search has undoubtedly occurred. 2. Property rights are not the sole measure of the Fourth Amendment violations. 3. The 4th Amendment does not prevent all investigations conducted on private property. 4. The right to retreat would be significantly diminished if the police could enter a man’s property to observe his repose from just outside the front window. 5. The curtilage is part of the home, so privacy expectations are heightened. 6. The officer entered the curtilage of Jardines home. 7. When permitting visual observation of the home from public navigable airspace, we are careful to note that it was done in a physically nonintrusive manner. 8. The detectives had all four of their feet and all four of the K9’s feet on a constitutionally protected area of Jardines home. 9. A person knocking on someone’s door wanting an invitation is different than having a drug-detection K9 on your front step. 10. The officers only learned what they learned by physically intruding on Jardine’s property to gather evidence is enough to established that a search occurred.

Kara Chrispen CJS 305-01

CONCURRENCE: Kagan, Ginsburg, Sotomayor 1. A person with binoculars can come up to your window and look inside your windows and learn details about your life. He has now just trespassed on your property. He has also invaded on your reasonable expectation of privacy. 2. Jardines home is not just his property. It is also the most intimate and familiar space. 3. The police have conducted a search because they used a “device” to explore the details of a home that would have otherwise have discovered without entering the home. DISSENT: Alito, Kennedy, Breyer 1. Anyone can walk up to someone’s door. 2. The detective just came up this Jardines door with his dog. 3. The dog’s acute sense of smell has been used for centuries. 4. Odors coming from a home can be detected from locations that are open to the public and a reasonable person will not count on the strength of those odors remaining within the range that, while detectable by a dog, cannot be smelled by a human....