The Police should have had a search warrant before going to Jardines residency. The Dog sniff test method is the most accurate way of indicating drug paraphernalia but it invaded the privacy of Jardines. According to the Forth Amendment, “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable causes, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”
As a group we decided that by entering on Jardines’s property, the police officers went against the Forth Amendment which is an important part of our Constitution. An example of this case is Kyllo vs. United States in 2001. This was a similar case where the police used thermal-imaging device to check if his house was hotter than the rest. The Court explained that the use of sense-enhancing technology to obtain information about the inside of one’s home could not otherwise be obtained without physical intrusion. This would go against the Fourth Amendment. Especially when the technology being issued is not widely used by the public. This case has caused our thinking that the same would apply in favor to Jardines in the case of Florida vs. Jardines.
Another example of this issue happened in 1967 with the case of Katz vs. United Sates. Katz was using a pay-phone booth to place bets. The FBI eavesdropped on Katz’s conversation through a device attached to the outside of a phone booth. Katz was convicted based on the recordings of his conversations. The Supreme Court overturned his conviction, holding that the government’s surveillance “ violated the privacy upon which he justifiably relied” and so was a ‘search and seizure’ under the Forth Amendment. Using both of these examples, we strengthen our conclusion that the Police whom convicted Jardines were in fact in violation of the Fourth Amendment.
The Fourth Amendment, or Amendment IV of the United States Constitution is the section of the Bill of Rights that protects people from being searched or having their belongings taken away from them without any good reason. If the government or any law enforcement official wants to search or take their things away, he or she must have a very good reason to do so and they must get permission to perform the search from a judge. I think that the judge must know a great deal about a case to give permission to someone to come into a persons home and search through their belongings. That judge is going to say whether or not that person has enough evidence to search through someone else’s belongings. The judge makes the final decision based on what’s best, and that judge doesn’t need Congress to legislate the standards that guide them in deciding and doing their job. Congress is better off staying back and letting the professional judge do his or her job.
Although Congress shouldn’t butt in on the standards that guide the judges in deciding Fourth Amendment cases, but Congress needs to say whether or not new technologies and procedures may or may not be used for law enforcement. The judge might know what going on with cases, but I’m not sure if they will know about technology, that is constantly changing. That’s why Congress is there to help regulate and enforce these procedures. It gives the judges more time focusing on the important cases then worrying about technology.
If the Court rules in favor of Florida, will police be free to conduct “sniff tests” on any person in public, or outside any building, at any time and for any reason? No, the police should always have a suspicion about a private area before checking it with a warrant. If the area is public the police should be able to check the area including someones yard but only if there is a suspicion of drug use in the house or around the area, people that pass by the house can see the yard making it public to the people and can lead to complaints. The inside of a house is area that is private to the owner and will need to have a warrant to be checked out. Doing a sniff test on someone in public for any reason is a little different, a person is private and should not need to be checked for any reason just because they are in a public area. There should always be a suspicion before checking someone that is in public.Friend of the Court – Amicus Brief Badge
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.