Florida v. Jardines
133 S. Ct. 1409
| SCOTUS | 2013Background
- Tip alleged marijuana cultivation at Jardines’ home; surveillance by police and DEA began a month later.
- Detective Bartelt, with his drug-detecting dog, approached the front porch on a six-foot leash.
- Dog alerted to narcotics at the base of the front door; officers obtained a warrant based on this information.
- Warrant executed; marijuana plants found; Jardines charged with cannabis trafficking.
- Jardines sought suppression of the marijuana plants as the canine search violated the Fourth Amendment.
- Florida courts suppressed the evidence; Florida Supreme Court affirmed, holding the dog search unsupported by probable cause.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a drug-detection dog on a home’s curtilage constitutes a Fourth Amendment search | Jardines: canine activity was a trespass/search invading privacy | State: dog-assisted odor detection within public domain should be permissible | Yes, it was a search; suppression affirmed |
| Whether the front porch and curtilage are protected as part of the home for Fourth Amendment purposes | Trespass-rooted rule extends to curtilage; intrusion on home area invalidates evidence | Implied license allows approach to front door; dog sniff merely reveals incriminating evidence | Curtilage is part of the home; entering with a dog to obtain evidence is a search |
| Whether Katz privacy concerns govern or are subsumed by property-based Fourth Amendment protections | Odors detected by dog implicate privacy interests under Katz | Physical intrusion on protected area makes Katz inapplicable or unnecessary | Property-based baseline suffices to find a search; Katz analysis not controlling |
| Whether a violation could be justified by traditional license to approach a home and gather evidence | Knocker/license permits approaching front door and gathering evidence within limits | License does not authorize a canine search or intrusion beyond customary approach | License does not authorize canine search; conduct exceeded implicit license |
Key Cases Cited
- Oliver v. United States, 466 U.S. 170 (1984) (curtilage protected as part of the home for Fourth Amendment purposes)
- California v. Ciraolo, 476 U.S. 207 (1986) (open-view observation from public space permissible; contrasts with curtilage protection)
- Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967) (privacy framework supplemented by property-based baseline)
- United States v. Place, 462 U.S. 696 (1983) (canine inspection not at issue here; Katz-based privacy tests discussed)
- United States v. Jacobsen, 466 U.S. 109 (1984) (physical intrusion principles; tech not in general public use discussed elsewhere)
- Kyllo v. United States, 533 U.S. 27 (2001) (technology-based surveillance rule; not controlling dog sniff but relevant to privacy proximity)
- Florida v. Harris, 568 U.S. _ (2013) (drug-detection dog reliability cited in privacy context)
- United States v. Knotts, 460 U.S. 276 (1983) (tracking without physical intrusion; related to threshold of search)
- Jones v. United States, 565 U.S. _ (2012) (GPS tracking and physical intrusion principle underpinning search analysis)