| Florida v. Jardines | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Argued October 31, 2012 Decided March 26, 2013 | |
| Full case name | State of Florida, Petitioner v. Joelis Jardines, Respondent |
| Docket no. | 11-564 |
| Citations | 569 U.S. 1 (more) 133 S. Ct. 1409; 185 L. Ed. 2d 495; 2013 U.S. LEXIS 2542; 81 U.S.L.W. 4209 |
| Case history | |
| Prior | evid. suppressed at trial; reversed, 9 So.3d 1 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008); quashed, 73 So.3d 34, (Fla. S. Ct. 2011); rehearing denied, unpubl. order, (Fla. S. Ct. 2011); cert. granted, 565 U.S. 1104 (2012). |
| Holding | |
| The government's use of trained police dogs to investigate the home and its immediate surroundings is a "search" within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment. Supreme Court of Florida affirmed. | |
| Court membership | |
| |
| Case opinions | |
| Majority | Scalia, joined by Thomas, Ginsburg, Sotomayor, Kagan |
| Concurrence | Kagan, joined by Ginsburg, Sotomayor |
| Dissent | Alito, joined by Roberts, Kennedy, Breyer |
| Laws applied | |
| U.S. Const. amend. IV | |
Florida v. Jardines, 569 U.S. 1 (2013), was a United States Supreme Court case which resulted in the decision that police use of a trained detection dog to sniff for narcotics on the front porch of a private home is a "search" within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution, and therefore, without consent, requires both probable cause and a search warrant.[1]
In 2006, police in Miami, Florida received an anonymous tip that a home was being used as a marijuana grow house. They led a drug-sniffing police dog to the front door of the home, and the dog alerted at the front door to the scent of contraband. A search warrant was issued, which led to the arrest of the homeowner.
Twenty-seven U.S. states and the Federal government, among others, had supported Florida's argument that this use of a police dog was an acceptable form of minimally invasive warrantless search.[2][3] In a 5–4 decision, the Court disagreed, despite three previous cases in which the Court had held that a dog sniff was not a search when deployed against luggage at an airport, against vehicles in a drug interdiction checkpoint, and against vehicles during routine traffic stops. The Court made clear by this ruling that it considers the deployment of a police dog at the front door of a private residence to be another matter altogether.