harlan logo
Amicus Brief on the case of Florida v. Jardines

In the case of  Florida v. Jardines, the Florida police are following the laws set by the Florida Constitution and the Constitution of the United States.  The Florida police were doing their job.  The drug sniffing dog was not against the Fourth Amendment right because the police had not been inside off the house.  A search warrant is usually issued if police are looking for evidence inside of the home.  In this case there was not a problem whether or not the police had a search warrant because they had one when they enter the home.  If dogs are allowed to sniff in peoples yards or other people are allowed to walk up to someones door, then why can’t the police and a drug dog be outside a home.  Anyone can have suspicion of the objects inside of a home but they do not need a warrant to go up to a house.  Police are no different, they followed the laws set by their government.  Jardines has no Constitutional proof that the dog handler did anything unconstitutional.  The Florida police were undergoing an investigation and the fact that a drug sniffing dog was what they needed then it is constitutional for that dog to be on the property.  Nothing was done that went against the fourth amendment.