{"id":8535,"date":"2013-03-27T07:13:43","date_gmt":"2013-03-26T11:30:54","guid":{"rendered":""},"modified":"-0001-11-30T00:00:00","modified_gmt":"2013-03-26T11:30:54","slug":"en-US","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=8535","title":{"rendered":"SCOTUS decides Jardines: Dog sniff at the door of the home is a “search” under Jones"},"content":{"rendered":"

Florida v. Jardines<\/a>, 2013 U.S. LEXIS 2542, 2013 WL 1196577 (U.S. March 26, 2013): Dog sniff at the door of a home is a “search” under Jones requiring probable cause and a warrant. <\/p>\n

The syllabus:<\/p>\n

Police took a drug-sniffing dog to Jardines\u2019 front porch, where the dog gave a positive alert for narcotics. Based on the alert, the officers obtained a warrant for a search, which revealed marijuana plants; Jardines was charged with trafficking in cannabis. The Supreme Court of Florida approved the trial court\u2019s decision to suppress the evidence, holding that the officers had engaged in a Fourth Amendment search unsupported by probable cause.<\/p>\n

Held: The investigation of Jardines\u2019 home was a \u201csearch\u201d within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment. Pp. 3\u201310.
\n(a) When \u201cthe Government obtains information by physically intruding\u201d on persons, houses, papers, or effects, \u201ca \u2018search\u2019 within the original meaning of the Fourth Amendment\u201d has \u201cundoubtedly occurred.\u201d United States v. Jones, 565 U. S. ___, ___, n. 3. Pp. 3\u20134.
\n(b) At the Fourth Amendment\u2019s \u201cvery core\u201d stands \u201cthe right of a man to retreat into his own home and there be free from unreasonable governmental intrusion.\u201d Silverman v. United States, 365 U. S. 505, 511. The area \u201cimmediately surrounding and associated with the home\u201d\u2014the curtilage\u2014is \u201cpart of the home itself for Fourth Amendment purposes.\u201d Oliver v. United States, 466 U. S. 170, 180. The officers entered the curtilage here: The front porch is the classic exemplar of an area \u201cto which the activity of home life extends.\u201d Id., at 182, n. 12. Pp. 4\u20135.
\n(c) The officers\u2019 entry was not explicitly or implicitly invited. Officers need not \u201cshield their eyes\u201d when passing by a home \u201con public thoroughfares,\u201d California v. Ciraolo, 476 U. S. 207, 213, but \u201cno man can set his foot upon his neighbour\u2019s close without his leave,\u201d Entick v. Carrington, 2 Wils. K. B. 275, 291, 95 Eng. Rep. 807, 817. A police officer not armed with a warrant may approach a home in hopes of speaking to its occupants, because that is \u201cno more than any private citizen might do.\u201d Kentucky v. King, 563 U. S. ___, ___. But the scope of a license is limited not only to a particular area but also to a specific purpose, and there is no customary invitation to enter the curtilage simply to conduct a search. Pp. 5\u20138.
\n(d) It is unnecessary to decide whether the officers violated Jardines\u2019 expectation of privacy under Katz v. United States, 389 U. S. 347. Pp. 8\u201310. <\/p>\n

73 So. 3d 34, affirmed.<\/p>\n

SCALIA, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which THOMAS, GINSBURG, SOTOMAYOR, and KAGAN, JJ., joined. KAGAN, J., filed a concurring opinion, in which GINSBURG and SOTOMAYOR, JJ., joined. ALITO, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which ROBERTS, C. J., and KENNEDY and BREYER, JJ., joined.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

I figured this outcome because of the higher protection of the home running from Payton to Kyllo. I did not think it would be 5-4, nor did I think Breyer would dissent nor Thomas be in the majority. (I thought it would be 6-3 with Roberts, Alito, and Thomas dissenting. Kennedy truly is a loose cannon.)<\/p>\n

And, my friends in Florida say the name is pronouced “Har-day-nis.”<\/p>\n

This case is important on curtilage.<\/p>\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-8535","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/8535","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=8535"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/8535\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=8535"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=8535"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=8535"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}