Petitioner Vs. Joelis Jardines Case Study

1901 Words8 Pages

The 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. He noticed there were no vehicles in the driveway. There was also no …show more content…

In the foundational case of Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967), the Supreme Court broadened the scope of the Fourth Amendment by holding that it applies when there is a reasonable expectation of privacy. Looking further, does that mean that the government can contradict all Fourth Amendment protections by saying that employees should have no hope of privacy, according to the department’s policies? Determining the reasonableness of any search involves a twofold inquiry: first, one must consider 'whether the . . . action was justified at its inception'; second, one must determine whether the search as actually conducted 'was reasonably related in scope to the circumstances which justified the interference in the first place (Chemerinksy, E., 2010). The court decided this way because they majority felt that the searching of the home with the police dog is within the Fourth Amendment rights and was a reasonable search. It was concluded by a 5-4 margin. The majority included Scalia, Thomas, Ginsburg, Sotomayor, and Kagan. They did not focus on the right to privacy, which is associated with most Fourth Amendment cases this day and time. The final decision for them hinged on the foundation of a citizen's property rights. The concurrence included Kagan, Ginsburg, and Sotomayor. They lingered upon the binoculars example to argue even more that both privacy rights and property rights are equally connected. The dissent included Alito, Roberts, Kennedy, and Breyer. The majority's decision was based on a supposed rule of trespassing laws, that there is nowhere to be found in the records of Anglo-American jurisprudence. In United States v. Carloss case, a divided US Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit ruled that police didn't violate the Fourth Amendment when they walked past several "no trespassing" signs, knocked on the door of a home and asked to speak to

Open Document