harlan logo

jardines opinion

November 4th, 2012

To me, it seems almost common sense, with knowledge of the constitution, that Jardines house was illegally searched.  We the court decide that the search was in fact illegal, but Jardines may be searched and tested, with a warrant, at any time.  Also, Jardines house must be cleaned by the DEA.  The defendant should not get charged for possession because the marijuana was found in an illegal search.  If anyone should be charged, it should be either the officer or the department in which he belongs.   Everyone must have their constitutional rights protected.  In the Kyllo V. U.S. case, the U.S. had a tool to help them detect, but they never searched the house until they had a warrant.  If Florida had used the dog to assist them in obtaining a warrant, that would be constitutional, then Jardines would be guilty and charged for possession and distribution would have been further looked into.  In the Indianapolis V. Edmond case, the search was unconstitutional, which we agreed with because, just like in this case, there was no warrant for a search and there was no one person or group being looked for.   In the U.S. V. Place case, we decide to stick with the precedent and say that a sniff search, without a warrant, is in fact illegal.  If there are found weapons or explosives in the detector or scanner, a search must happen to insure the safety of our country, but because drugs couldn’t physically hurt anyone on the plane, the search was unconstitutional.  Everyone is guaranteed a protection of rights, and an illegal search is a violation of these rights.