harlan logo

Florida v. Jardines

November 4th, 2012

I think that they will vote it unconstitutional. I think that the fourth Amendment was violated. I think the police needed more evidence then that of someones word. The person could have said something because they may have not liked Jardines. In Katz v. United States (1967) they convicted Katz because of his phone call they were recording. They later then overturned his conviction because the surveillance because it “violated the privacy upon which he justifiably relied” and “search and seizure” under the Fourth Amendment. This should be the same for Jardines because they  violated the “search and seizure” under the Fourth Amendment. In United States v. Place (1983)  they determined that the search dog can only smell the drugs that were only the presence or absence of illegal narcotics and that they reveal nothing about the persons personal life. This should be the same for Jardines, but only if they have more reasons to do so. In United States v. Place they had a reason to search because they were in the airport and they will obviously do a search because it is the airport. But Jardines did not have enough reasoning to give the police the right to do a “sniff test.” In Indianapolis v. Edmond (2000) the ruling that it was unconstitutional because it cannot exist merely to detect ordinary criminal wrongdoing.  They should vote that Florida v. Jardines is unconstitutional because they voted unconstitutional in all of the other cases. They all are pretty much the same cases and therefore have the same vote.