{"id":5440,"date":"2012-02-01T15:05:30","date_gmt":"2011-04-14T14:46:35","guid":{"rendered":""},"modified":"-0001-11-30T00:00:00","modified_gmt":"2011-04-14T14:46:35","slug":"en-US","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=5440","title":{"rendered":"FL: Dog sniff of home violates Fourth Amendment"},"content":{"rendered":"

The Florida Supreme Court held today that a dog sniff of the home violates the Fourth Amendment. The court discusses all cases decided to this point from all jurisdictions. Jardines v. State<\/a>, 73 So. 3d 34 (Fla. 2011):<\/p>\n

We have for review State v. Jardines<\/a>, 9 So. 3d 1 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008), in which the district court certified conflict with State v. Rabb<\/a>, 920 So. 2d 1175 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006). We have jurisdiction. … We quash the decision in Jardines<\/a> and approve the result in State v. Rabb<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Police conducted a warrantless \u201csniff test\u201d by a drug detection dog at Jardines’ home and discovered live marijuana plants inside. The trial court granted Jardines’ motion to suppress the evidence, and the State appealed. The district court reversed, and Jardines sought review in this Court. Jardines claims that the warrantless \u201csniff test\u201d violated his right against unreasonable searches under the Fourth Amendment. The issue presented here is twofold: (i) whether a \u201csniff test\u201d by a drug detection dog conducted at the front door of a private residence is a \u201csearch\u201d under the Fourth Amendment and, if so, (ii) whether the evidentiary showing of wrongdoing that the government must make prior to conducting such a search is probable cause or reasonable suspicion. <\/p>\n

. . .<\/p>\n

Based on the foregoing, we conclude that the dog \u201csniff test\u201d that was conducted here was an intrusive procedure. The \u201csniff test\u201d was a sophisticated undertaking that was the end result of a sustained and coordinated effort by various law enforcement departments. On the scene, the procedure involved multiple police vehicles, multiple law enforcement personnel, including narcotics detectives and other officers, and an experienced dog handler and trained drug detection dog engaged in a vigorous search effort on the front porch of the residence. Tactical law enforcement personnel from various government agencies, both state and federal, were on the scene for surveillance and backup purposes. The entire on-the-scene government activity\u2014i.e., the preparation for the \u201csniff test,\u201d the test itself, and the aftermath, which culminated in the full-blown search of Jardines’ home\u2014lasted for hours. The \u201csniff test\u201d apparently took place in plain view of the general public. There was no anonymity for the resident.<\/p>\n

Such a public spectacle unfolding in a residential neighborhood will invariably entail a degree of public opprobrium, humiliation and embarrassment for the resident, whether or not he or she is present at the time of the search, for such dramatic government activity in the eyes of many\u2014neighbors, passers-by, and the public at large\u2014will be viewed as an official accusation of crime. Cf. Place, 462 U.S. at 707 (explaining that the dog \u201csniff test\u201d in that case was not a \u201csearch\u201d within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment because it was limited in scope and was anonymous and did not subject the individual to \u201cembarrassment and inconvenience\u201d). And if the resident happens to be present at the time of the \u201csniff test,\u201d such an intrusion into the sanctity of his or her home will generally be a frightening and harrowing experience that could prompt a reflexive or unpredictable response.<\/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-5440","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5440","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=5440"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5440\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=5440"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=5440"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=5440"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}