{"id":10051,"date":"2013-12-24T08:17:00","date_gmt":"2013-12-23T08:30:58","guid":{"rendered":""},"modified":"-0001-11-30T00:00:00","modified_gmt":"2013-12-23T08:30:58","slug":"en-US","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=10051","title":{"rendered":"ID: Jardines doesn\u2019t prevent knock-and-talks going to the front door"},"content":{"rendered":"

Jardines<\/a> doesn\u2019t prevent knock-and-talks going to the front door. Here, officers without a dog could smell marijuana. State v. Howard<\/a>, 2013 Ida. App. LEXIS 92 (December 19, 2013):<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

The analysis and holdings of Jardines distinguish it from the facts involved in this case. Here, the officers approached the home by the customary path, knocked, waited briefly to be received, and then (when no one answered) left. Thus, because the officers’ conduct fell within that granted by their implicit license as explicitly recognized by Jardines, an objective view of that conduct reveals no purpose to conduct a search.<\/p>\n

While Howard suggests that Sweesy’s detection of the odor of marijuana while at his front door “is no different than the drug sniffing dog alerting on Mr. Jardines’ front porch,” the Jardines opinion itself directs that this is not so. The Supreme Court explained that its prior case law establishes “that it is not a Fourth Amendment search to approach the home in order to speak with the occupant” and that “the mere ‘purpose of discovering information’ … in the course of engaging in that permitted conduct does not cause it to violate the Fourth Amendment.” Id. at n.4, 133 S. Ct. at 1416 n.4. In her concurring opinion and in response to a complaint by the dissent, Justice Kagan stated the matter even more directly when she said that if officers at the front door “can smell drugs coming from a house, they can use that information; a human sniff is not a search, we can all agree.” Id. at __ n.2, 133 S. Ct. at 1419 n.2 (Kagan J., concurring). Howard has failed to show that the officers’ conduct in their initial entry onto the curtilage of his home violated the Fourth Amendment.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

b2evALnk.b2WPAutP Continue reading →<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"pingsdone","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-10051","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/10051","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=10051"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/10051\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=10051"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=10051"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=10051"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}