In the Florida v. Jardines, I believe that the court should rule in favor of Florida. Reacting off of probably cause that Jardines was growing the illegal substance of Marijuana in his home, the police took action to arrest him. The police were outside his house, on public property, and sent a dog to the door to sniff for evidence of illegal substances. Sending a dog to the door is the same form of trespassing on private property as a door-to-door salesman coming to a persons door. There was no illegal search and the authorities did obtain a search warrant from the  court before entering the house and confiscating evidence.
The Fourth Amendment States :”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 the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.” The police did have probable cause and the search was supported by Oath and affirmation. 
 
In the case of Indianapolis v. Edmonton, a similar case of a highway check-point in search of drugs was argued in the case. Edmonton tried to prove that having dogs sniff cars looking for illegal substances was illegal. The court ruled in favor of Indianapolis.
In United States v. Place, airport officials used dogs to sniff luggage of passengers. Place tried to argue that the sniffs were against his Fourth Amendment rights, but the court ruled in favor of United States because if was only a drug dog, rather than official rummaging through a persons luggage and belongings.
In Illinois v. Cabellas, officers pulled over a man who was speeding. After the officer had given the man a warning, a drug dog circled his car and signaled that drugs were present. Officials searched his car and arrested him with possession.