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.
The police acted based on a tip, they didn’t have any evidence to search the home of Jardines. two detectives and a drug dog went to the residence of Jardines. They searched the house the first time for evidence. Once they found pliable evidence they issued for a search warrant. They violated the Fourth Amendment by bringing a drug dog which is used by police to SEARCH for paraphernalia. bringing a drug dog is the act of a search. The Fourth amendment says that the police need a warrant in order to search a persons residence. The two detectives that went the first time did not have a warrant. They did a search that was not constitutional. The police are given their rights and we respect them. Shouldn’t they have the decency to respect Jardines’ right?
In the Supreme Court case of Florida v. Jardines the court has voted six to three in favor of Florida. The Fourth Amendment states that a person is not able to be searched without a warrant or probable cause. And that the “sniff search” is considered to be probable cause because it does not invade a person’s private life but the narcotics dog was only looking for evidence of narcotics. And the search is not intrusive on a person’s private life. And the State of Florida acted constitutionally but searching and arresting Jardines.
This case is much like United States v. Place, the Court ruled that the United States did not violate the probable cause because a “sniff test” was used and it does not intrude on a persons privacy and it only looked for illegal narcotics.
In the Case of Illinois v. Caballes the Court ruled that Illinois did acted constitutionally because a “sniff test” was used after Caballes was pulled over on the highway for speeding and a narcotics dog was called in to do a “sniff test”. And Caballes being pulled over first was also considered probable cause for search.
Florida v. Jardines is not like Indianapolis v. Edmond. Because the Court ruled that Indianapolis acted in unconstitutionally because they set up a highway checkpoint to have a “sniff test” on every vehicle and they were considered to be trying to find criminals. This was unconstitutional because there were no reasons to search unlike in the other cases.Florida v. Jardines
In the Florida v. Jardines, I believe that the court should rule in favor of Florida. Reacting off of probably cause that Jardines was growing the illegal substance of Marijuana in his home, the police took action to arrest him. The police were outside his house, on public property, and sent a dog to the door to sniff for evidence of illegal substances. Sending a dog to the door is the same form of trespassing on private property as a door-to-door salesman coming to a persons door. There was no illegal search and the authorities did obtain a search warrant from the court before entering the house and confiscating evidence.
The Fourth Amendment States :”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 cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.” The police did have probable cause and the search was supported by Oath and affirmation.
In the case of Indianapolis v. Edmonton, a similar case of a highway check-point in search of drugs was argued in the case. Edmonton tried to prove that having dogs sniff cars looking for illegal substances was illegal. The court ruled in favor of Indianapolis.
In United States v. Place, airport officials used dogs to sniff luggage of passengers. Place tried to argue that the sniffs were against his Fourth Amendment rights, but the court ruled in favor of United States because if was only a drug dog, rather than official rummaging through a persons luggage and belongings.
In Illinois v. Cabellas, officers pulled over a man who was speeding. After the officer had given the man a warning, a drug dog circled his car and signaled that drugs were present. Officials searched his car and arrested him with possession.
After suspicion of Marijuana in Jardines house, without a warrant, a drug detection dog was brought to Jardines house. The drug dogs handler conducted a sniff test on Jardines front porch, once the drug dog made a signal, this alerted the police that Jardines did have marijuana inside his house. The police then got a search warrant, and with the search of the house, the police were able to confirmed the growth of marijuana in Jardines household. Jardines argued that this goes against his Fourth Amendment. But the Fourth Amendment states 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 cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. The Fourth Amendments protects people from unreasonable searches in their house. The fourth Amendment does not state police officials cannot go on the front porch. In United States v. Place an air travelers luggage was subjected to a sniff test. The Court decided this was not a Fourth Amendment search, because these dogs only searched for the presence of illegal narcotics. In Indianapolis v. Edmond, Edmond found that the use of a drug dog at a highway-checkpoint programs went against his Fourth Amendments, but the court ruled with Indianapolis that it did not. Also in Illinois v. Caballes, Caballes was pulled over for speeding, in which another police came to help. The second cop came with a drug dog, and the drug dog sniff something coming from Caballes car. Marijuana was found in the trunk of Caballes car and he was arrested. He argues that this went against his Fourth Amendment, but the court ruled that it did not because a dogs sniffs reveals only the presences of contraband. These courts show that to a certain degree, officials are able to search without a warrant. Because the drug dog was on the front porch of Jardines house and not inside his actual house, this does not go against his Fourth Amendment rights.Florida v. Jardines
I think that they will vote it unconstitutional. I think that the fourth Amendment was violated. I think the police needed more evidence then that of someones word. The person could have said something because they may have not liked Jardines. In Katz v. United States (1967) they convicted Katz because of his phone call they were recording. They later then overturned his conviction because the surveillance because it “violated the privacy upon which he justifiably relied” and “search and seizure” under the Fourth Amendment. This should be the same for Jardines because they violated the “search and seizure” under the Fourth Amendment. In United States v. Place (1983) they determined that the search dog can only smell the drugs that were only the presence or absence of illegal narcotics and that they reveal nothing about the persons personal life. This should be the same for Jardines, but only if they have more reasons to do so. In United States v. Place they had a reason to search because they were in the airport and they will obviously do a search because it is the airport. But Jardines did not have enough reasoning to give the police the right to do a “sniff test.” In Indianapolis v. Edmond (2000) the ruling that it was unconstitutional because it cannot exist merely to detect ordinary criminal wrongdoing. They should vote that Florida v. Jardines is unconstitutional because they voted unconstitutional in all of the other cases. They all are pretty much the same cases and therefore have the same vote.My Opinon on Florida v. Jardines
Florida v. Jardines presents the case of a man named Joelis Jardines arguing that his Fourth Amendments rights are being violated. My opinion on this case is that Mr. Jardines rights are being violated and I think the evidence is not to be use to convict him. The Fourth Amendment states “The right of people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures…” Part of being secure in your house is being secure on your own property. Police were suspicious of Jardines and brought a drug sniffing dog named Franky onto his porch and who then signaled that there were drugs inside the house, so they then applied for a search warrant. The drugs were seized, and Jardines was arrested as an outcome from the drug sniffing test. I believe that the evidence of the drugs was obtained in violation of the Constitution. Jardine’s porch is part of his home and the police had no right to go up there with a drug sniffing dog without obtaining a search warrant. I think the drug sniffing dog should not be allowed to sniff any part of the property without obtaining a search warrant. I think that in order to conduct a sniff test outside or inside of one’s home you should have a search warrant. Kyllo v. United States is also the same way they ordered the search warrant after getting evidence against Fourth Amendment rights. I think that the only way to do a drug sniff or a heat lamp on somebody’s property is through a search warrant. As a different opinion on this matter looking back to the United States v. Place case I would say that one is constitutional. I think the difference between the two cases is the United States v. Place was a suitcase that was in an airport which is a public place. I believe that the drug sniff test should be used in the air port because it’s looking out for the safety of the public. I would also agree to the Illinois v. Caballes case being constitutional. I believe that this case is constitutional because it was on the road which is also a public place and it is also looking out for the safety of the public.Jardines v. Franky
I believe that Jardine will win the Supreme Court 5 to 4. The reason for this is because the police and the dog went on Jardines property and did not have a search warrant but i think that the dog was able to smell the illegal substance from the street. If the police had the evidence and warrant before hand they would win. Since now warrant was issued then Jardines will win this case. The fourth Amendment sates that you cannot come unto a property on probable cause without warrant. I also believe that the car is different, already having to be pulled over without knowing of illegal substances does give you the right to search a car but this is a house. The police only had hints that Jardines was holding an illegal substance. The dog can sniff from the street but that does not mean that a warrant should not be used. You were still contacted as a hint of drug posestion and you brought a bunch of police cars to the scene just to find some evidence.
Slippery Slope) I think that police dogs will beable to go were ever pleased if the court sides with Florida. But I do not think they should side with Jardines just because they believe this. The Supreme Court won’t allow Florida dog troups to have this much power.
In the case Florida v. Jardines, Jardines claims that the state is violating his fourth amendment when they searched his home without a warrant. The Fourth Amendment is part of the Bill of Rights which guards against unreasonable searches, along with requiring a warrant supported by a probable cause. In November of 2006, the Maiami- Dade Police Department received information that Jardines was growing marijuana inside his home. Without a warrant, the police brought a dog to Jardines house in order to conduct a sniff test. The dog gave a signal saying that there was marijuana inside the house. The police then applied for and received a search warrant. When searching the home they found out that Jardines had in fact been growing marijuana inside. Jardines was then arrested. This case was kind of like Kyllo v. United States when the police used a thermal -imaging device in order to see if Kyllo was using his home to grow marijuana. The court held that the use of the thermal – imaging device was against the fourth amendment, because of how the information was obtained. United States v. Place was another case when a dog sniffed and air traveler’s luggage.
The court rules with respondent Jardines. It is unlawful for the state to search a home without a probable cause. They need to get a warrant before they go and search other peoples home without their knowledge. It is like in the case Katz v. United States when Charles Katz used a public pay-phone to place bets, and the FBI eavesdropped on his conversation without his knowledge. Florida searched Jardines home without a warrant.