Trespass Test and Reasonable Expectation of Privacy

Question 1

Florida v Jardines

Answer 1

n 2006, the Miami-Dade Police Department received an unverified tip that Joelis Jardines was growing marijuana in his home. A month later, a surveillance team, including Detective William Pedraja and canine handler Detective Douglas Bartelt with his drug-sniffing dog, was sent to Jardines’ residence. After observing the house for 15 minutes and seeing no outward signs of illegal activity, Detective Bartelt and his dog approached the front porch. The dog, trained to detect various drugs, indicated the presence of narcotics at the base of the front door. Based on this alert, the police obtained a warrant, searched Jardines’ home, found marijuana plants, and charged him with trafficking in cannabis. Jardines moved to suppress the evidence on the grounds that the canine investigation was an unreasonable search.

Issue
The central legal question was whether using a drug-sniffing dog on a homeowner’s porch to investigate the contents of the home constitutes a “search” within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment.

Holding
The Supreme Court held that the government’s use of a trained narcotics detection dog to investigate the home and its immediate surroundings is a “search” within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment.