The use of drug sniffing dogs as a law enforcement tool is of mandatory status. The uses they provide are endless and without them, their might be more drugs being grown, sold, and transported. In the case of Florida v. Jardines, the use of a drug dog on Jardines property without a warrant was not against his 4th amendment rights because the officers did not physically enter Jardines residence with the drug sniffing dog but simply walked the perimeter of Mr. Jardines property to indicate if in fact their was marijuana being grown inside the house of if their was any signs of marijuana being present on the property. The use of the drug sniffing dog in this case was very helpful. Humans are not physically capable to have the sense of smell that dogs do so in turn that is why the drug dog in this case was very helpful towards officers because of the dogs sense to be able to sniff out the drug. In the case of Illinois v. Caballes, Illinois state troopers pulled over Caballes for speeding on the highway. Well another responded to the call and also had a narcotics sniffing dog present. As the one trooper issued a warning towards Caballes, the other trooper and narcotics dog, signaled that their was drugs in the car. The troopers then searched his car and found marijuana in the trunk. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Illinois because the “sniff test” did not violate Caballes 4th amendment rights because it did not infringe of his constitutional protected privacy interests.