harlan logo
Flordia v. Jardines Supreme Court decision

After hearing both sides of the case, the Supreme Court took a vote, with the majority of the votes (6-3) favoring towards Joelis Jardines. A big question that was asked by the court, “Is Jardines fourth amendment being violated?” Listening to what the Petitioner and the Respondent had to say, we, the Supreme Court, had an idea of whom we were voting for. To be completely fair, we decided to research past court cases similar to Florida v. Jardines. The United States v. Place case taken into consideration to research. With a “sniff test” at an airport that was not needed, also going against the fourth amendment. The case is similar and in favor to Florida v. Jardines, being searched without a warrant is going against his fourth amendment. We also looked at Indianapolis v. Edmond case. The Court declared unconstitutional a highway-checkpoint program whose primary purpose was the detection of illegal narcotics. The dog sniffs did not meet the requirements for the fourth amendment, therefore, the search was not appropriate. Connecting to Jardines case by, the dog sniff at his home without a warrant also did not meet any requirements, although not fully going inside Jardines home, it was still on his property. Lastly, we decided to look at one more case. We looked at Katz v. United States. Katz was convicted based on the recordings of his conversations. It goes against his fourth amendment because of violating his personal privacy. As a court, we decided after hearing both sides and researching other court cases, that it is most reasonable with Jardines.