We do not think the Florida v. Jardines case exactly resembles the phone taping case. Although we do understand that one has a right of privacy in their own home as do phone calls. We think that privacy is important, but still justice is justice. We do not think the phone taping case is a good case to compare to the Florida v. Jardines case. We think that even though the cases are very similar, the circumstances are very different. In one, a person’s privacy in their own household was violated. In the other case, a phone call was made on a public payphone and was monitored by the police. Although in both cases privacy was violated, one was in the privacy of their own home, which is protected by the Fourth Amendment, and the other was in a public place. We believe that police officers sometimes do whatever they feel is right even if it isn’t. We think that the law should do what is right for the people. That means putting all the people who are associated with drug in prison so we can keep young people away from drugs.Florida v. Jardines – Amicus Brief Badge
I wouldn’t have a problem with them using the drug dogs if they had a reasonable cause. They shouldn’t be able to go into someones door step and check for drugs. They should have a reason like he was selling or people had told them. In my opinion without a proper cause or a warrant the government should not be able to search a house. It wasn’t the best Idea to be growing marijuana. I think that Jardines didn’t hurt anyone or do anything so where does the government have the right to do a dog search. But the court says a warrant was not needed. The court also states that the “Dog sniffs” are not under the Fourth Amendment searches. Did Mr. Jardines do any harm to anyone around him? If Mr. Jardines did do harm then they have the right but if he didn’t do anything then they have no reason to search. Like with Kyllo V. United States they suspected and they got a search warrant. But in Jardines V. Florida they had suspected but they say the Fourth Amendment says you don’t need a search warrant to search someones house. The court shouldn’t have been able to enter the house without a warrant.
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.
I think the police should be able to have the dogs do a drug test in the hallways of the school just because the school is public property and its owned by the government. The police shouldn’t be able to just go to a random persons house with a dog and if the person has drugs they shouldn’t get into trouble. The police needs to ask the owner and not just suspect that they have drugs. The police should have looked into the case more then they did and not just by what people say. They need to investigate it and not just barge in like they did. If people were going to make or have drugs where it is legal they need to have a warrant. We think the guy shouldn’t be getting into that much trouble because they barged in without asking anyone. The police should at least put the guy under house arrest and keep the place under surveillance.