We believe that Jardines should be punished because of his decisions, but we also do believe that the officers were unconstitutional when they did the drug dog sniff on his property. They Fourth Amendment states that we are granted to be secure against unreasonable searches, and that people shall not be violated. But, it is questioned that the officers did have probable cause. There was a tip given and that gave a cause to need to search the area. We do see the case from both sides, however. In Jardines defense, he does have the right to privacy, but the police were given a probable cause to search his property.
Our group thinks that the police should have gotten a search warrant before they proceeded with the “sniffing” by the drug dog. The police had probable cause so they should have went for a warrant right then and there. This leads to thought that, if they would have went for a warrant with the tip, that it would be unlikely that they would have been granted the warrant.
In the case of Kyllo v. U.S. (2001), Kyllo was arrested for the growing of marijuana. Police wouldn’t have known this if they would not have used a thermal energy device. This device showed that Kyllo’s house was giving off a lot of heat energy than other homes in the neighborhood. The police believed that he was using heat lamps to grow marijuana because this home showed the same signs that other house did that had marijuana growing in them. In this case, four out of the nine justices in the Supreme Court thought this was unconstitutional. We think this was unconstitutional because of the Fourth Amendment. The officers violated Kyllo’s right to privacy since they didn’t have a warrant. We think these two cases are similar.
Our group does not agree with what Jardines did, but we do believe the police should have received a warrant before going anywhere near Jardines’ property. We believe that this case is unconstitutional.