Florida V. Joelis Jardine Case Analysis
The Supreme Court is the highest court in the United States court system. The rulings of the Supreme Court regards protecting constitutional rights, such as freedom of speech and administrative regulations governing airline safety (Tarr, 2014). The Florida v. Joelis Jardine case was presented to the Supreme Court of the United States in regards to the constitutional right of Jardine home to be searched. According to the SCOTUSblog, the holding was due to a dog sniffing at the door of a house of Jardine where police suspected drugs being grown which establishes right to search under the Fourth Amendment. For that reason, the Miami-Dade Police Department were granted a warrant to search the home of Jardine, but proceeded into his home. Subsequently, the Fourth Amendment states, “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against …show more content…
Based on the facts of the case and the process of the case reaching the Supreme Court. The blog written by Lyle Denniston stated that the Florida Supreme Court agreed that sending a dog onto the porch of someone private home, to sniff at the door, was considered a search and applied the Fourth Amendment. Even though, the Miami-Dade did not verify the trustworthy of the tip and did not receive a warrant to search the property in the initial stage of the case. Franky, a trained police working dog, detect marijuana. He was trained to sit down if there were drugs, marijuana, in this case in the area. As a result of his sniffing, Franky sat down warning the police officers that marijuana was in the home of Jardine. The police later located marijuana in the home. This lead to the case reaching the U.S. Supreme Court in the state of Florida’s appeal. The appeal was based on two issues, whether the use of Franky on the porch was a search and whether the officers others conduct in watching the house also was a search under the Fourth
Terry Vs Dickerson Case Study
525 Words | 3 PagesBased on these observations they stopped Dickerson and patted him down. The search didn’t reveal any weapons, but the officer did notice a small lump in his jacket and to him it felt like a lump of crack cocaine in cellophane. In the evidence suppression hearing, the trial court likened finding the crack cocaine to the “plain view” doctrine which allows officers to seize evidence of contraband in plain sight during a search for other items. Therefore, the evidence was admissible. Throughout the appeals of the case, the Minnesota Court of Appeals and the Minnesota Supreme Court agreed that the initial contact and pat down were valid under Terry, but seizing the cocaine was unconstitutional.
The United States V. Place 462 US Case Brief
510 Words | 3 PagesSignificance: The Supreme Court here expresses that governmental conduct like drug dog sniffing that can reveal whether a substance is contraband, yet no other private fact, does not compromise any privacy interest, and therefore is not a search subject to the Fourth Amendment. Terry v. Ohio permits only brief investigative stops and extremely limited searches based on reasonable suspicion including seizures of property independent of the seizure of the
Minnesota Vs Dickerson Case Summary
435 Words | 2 PagesSince the police officer had a reasonable suspicion that the Respondent was holding drugs, the officer’s search and seizure of the cocaine was reasonable since the search remained within the bounds set forth by Terry v. Ohio. The United States Supreme Court ruled that a police officer’s sense of touch does not incur an invasion of Petitioner’s privacy during a stop and
Petitioner Vs. Joelis Jardines Case Study
1901 Words | 8 PagesThe case Florida, Petitioner v. Joelis Jardines questions whether a dog sniff at the front door of a suspected grow house by a trained drug-detection dog is a Fourth Amendment search requiring probable cause (American Bar Association). The canine is being used as the use of surveillance in the investigation. The case begins with an unverified tip that marijuana was being grown in the home of Joelis Jardines on November 3, 2006 (American Bar Association). On December 5, 2006, around 7:00 a.m., the Department and the Drug Enforcement Administration sent a joint surveillance team to his home. Apart of the team is Detective Pedraja, whom watched the house for fifteen minutes.
Mark James Knights Case Study
829 Words | 4 PagesUnited States v. Mark James Knights, 219 F. 3d 1138 Issue: The issue involved in this case is whether the respondents Fourth Amendment rights were infringed upon when law enforcement searched his home without a warrant. Even though respondent agreed to the terms of probation following release, which included searches of his person or premises with or without a warrant (The United States Department of Justice, 2014). Rule: The rule of law in regards to Knights probation conditions following release state that Knights would “submit his person, property, residence, vehicle, personal effects, to be searched at any time, with or without a search warrant, warrant of arrest or reasonable cause by any probation officer or law enforcement officer” (Karagiozis et al., 2005 p. 223).
Terry V. Martinez's Case
1475 Words | 6 PagesThe legal questions in this case are: Did the stop and frisk of Christina 's violate her 4th Amendment rights? Did the search of Christina violate her 4th Amendment rights? Should the evidence taken be suppressed? These questions will be answered by applying to the facts of Martinez’s case to the precedent of Terry v. Ohio. According to the Terry v. Ohio precedent a police may perform a frisk without probable cause under the following circumstances.
Us Vs Walling Case Study
499 Words | 2 PagesAnd if those considered free of criminal involvement may nevertheless be searched or inspected under civil statutes, it is difficult to understand why the Fourth Amendment would prevent entry onto their property to recover evidence of a crime not committed by them but by others. As we understand the structure and language of the Fourth Amendment and our cases expounding it, valid warrants to search property may be issued when it is satisfactorily demonstrated to the magistrate that fruits, instrumentalities, or evidence of crime is located on the premises. The Fourth Amendment has itself struck the balance between privacy and public need, and there is no occasion or justification for a court to revise the Amendment and strike a new balance by denying the search warrant in the circumstances present here and by insisting that the investigation proceed by subpoena duces tecum, whether on the theory that the latter is a less intrusive alternative or
Florida Supreme Court Case Study
356 Words | 2 PagesThe questions were: 1. Did the Florida Supreme Court violate Article II Section 1 Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution by
Wolf V. Colorado Case Brief
584 Words | 3 PagesThe police violated Wolf’s rights and since there was no warrant for arrest or warrant to search his office the police was trespassing. The police officer who violated his rights was to be punished by his superiors. The judges decided that using such evidence goes completely against the Fourth Amendment which is a basic need to our freedom. States should follow this law but are not directly forced to. States using evidence that should be excluded in their “statute becomes a form, and its protection an illusion,”(Wolf v Colorado, 1949).
Dk Dbq Analysis
742 Words | 3 PagesAccording to Justice Scalia, the device was ‘not in general public use.’ (Doc F), Along with that, the areas the government scanned were not all in public view, as the inside of DLK’s home was generally inaccessible to the public. There are only four times when a search can be performed without a warrant: hot pursuit, public safety, danger of loss to evidence, and permission of the suspect. While some may argue that DLK could have packed up the marijuana or destroyed it, the chances of that are very slim, and it most likely could not be done in the time it takes the government to get a
Anthony V. State Of Florida Case No. 5D11-2357
416 Words | 2 PagesCase Gone Wrong: Anthony vs State of Florida Case No. 5D11-2357 If ever there was a botched case it was this one with inconsistencies on the part of the State being overwhelming. I watched this trial intently and read everything available.
Fourth Amendment Pros And Cons
1139 Words | 5 PagesThe Fourth Amendment of the Constitution prohibits unlawful searches conducted by the government, suggesting that it is the, “right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures.” In the case of Florida v. Jardines, Detective William Pedraja of the Miami-Dade Police Department received an unverified tip that marijuana was being grown the in the home of Jardines. After a mere fifteen-minute surveillance of the home, Detective Douglas Bartlet and his drug-sniffing dog walked up his driveway and onto the porch. The dog discovered the odor of marijuana. Taking what they had gathered at the home, Detective Pedraja applied for a warrant to search the residence and Jardines was
Fourth Amendment Case Study
740 Words | 3 PagesBy law the constitution states that the fourth amendment is the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing
Argumentative Essay On The Fourth Amendment
427 Words | 2 PagesThe right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures shall not be violated… We all know the fourth amendment. It's the amendment that guarantees our safety within our homes and our personal belongings. Yet, how much do you know about the fourth amendment? The fourth amendment is full of history, controversy, and discussion, even in modern day.
Summary Of Chapter 5 The Constitution For Business Managers
1012 Words | 5 PagesThe motion of delay the trial date is based on the Fourth Amendment. Case 5-5 is alike. The action of the detective before getting the warrant impacts the defendant’s privacy, property and freedom. As a result, the defendant defended with the Fourth Amendment, which proves that warrantless searches of private premises are mostly prohibited unless there are justifiable exceptions. And a dog-sniff inspection in invalid under the Fourth Amendment if the inspection violates a reasonable expectation of privacy.
More about Florida V. Joelis Jardine Case Analysis
Terry Vs Dickerson Case Study
525 Words | 3 PagesThe United States V. Place 462 US Case Brief
510 Words | 3 PagesMinnesota Vs Dickerson Case Summary
435 Words | 2 PagesPetitioner Vs. Joelis Jardines Case Study
1901 Words | 8 PagesMark James Knights Case Study
829 Words | 4 PagesTerry V. Martinez's Case
1475 Words | 6 PagesUs Vs Walling Case Study
499 Words | 2 PagesFlorida Supreme Court Case Study
356 Words | 2 PagesWolf V. Colorado Case Brief
584 Words | 3 PagesDk Dbq Analysis
742 Words | 3 PagesAnthony V. State Of Florida Case No. 5D11-2357
416 Words | 2 PagesFourth Amendment Pros And Cons
1139 Words | 5 PagesFourth Amendment Case Study
740 Words | 3 PagesArgumentative Essay On The Fourth Amendment
427 Words | 2 PagesSummary Of Chapter 5 The Constitution For Business Managers
1012 Words | 5 Pages