As the lawyer for Joelis Jardines, I feel that the use of drug-detecting dogs is necessary in some cases, but in the my client’s case the use of a drug-detecting dog was used for a “sniff test” without my clients knowledge or a search warrant. A detective should have gotten a search warrant after the test, for the search of my client’s home after the test was made. This is a violation of the fourth amendment, which gives the right to my client to be secure in persons, house, and property. This amendment does not just restrict to drug-detecting dogs, but also thermal-imaging device like in the Kyllo v. United States case in 2001. In 2001 the case of Kyllo v. United States is a clear example of how the police are cutting conners and not following the rules that they are suppose to uphold. Another example is when the FBI used a device that recorded conversations on a local pay phone in the Katz v. United States case in 1967. These are a couple of other devices that police use but are illegal. These devices can be very useful, but they need to follow the same guidelines as everything else. If used properly then it wouldn’t be an issue of violating the forth amendment, but in my case with Joelis, this drug-detecting dog was used illegally and should not be used against my client in this case.