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.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.