Supreme Court: Did a Drug Sniffing Dog Violate the 4th Amendment?
Published January 9, 2012
iStock Photo
Did a drug sniffing dog named Franky violate the Fourth Amendment? The United States Supreme Court is expected to decide just that later this year. NOTE: This is not Franky.
On Friday, January 6th, the United States Supreme Court agreed to hear Florida v. Jardines, a case which aims to determine if a police dog’s behavior outside of a private residence gives officials the right to get a search warrant for illegal drugs inside the home. At the core of the case is a debate over whether the actions of a drug-sniffing dog named Franky violated the Fourth Amendment, which requires law enforcement to present evidence to a judge that a crime has occurred in order to obtain a search warrant.
The case, which dates back to 2006, has a long history, beginning when Miami-Dade police used the detection dog Franky to sniff out whether there may have been illegal drugs inside the residence of Mr. Joelis Jardine. Franky, who has a reliable track record (he is responsible for the seizure of more than 2.5 tons of marijuana and $4.9 million dollars of drug-contaminated money), indicated with his tell (sitting down) that there were indeed drugs inside of Jardines' home. Using Franky's signaling as their primary evidence, the police obtained a warrant to search Jardines' residence; he was subsequently arrested for trafficking after police found 179 marijuana plants in his home.
Since the finding, the evidence that police obtained using Franky's nose has been the subject of hot debate. At Jardines' initial trial, the judge dismissed the evidence against Jardines, explaining that the plants were obtained through an illegal search and seizure. At Jardines' state appeal, however, the court reversed the ruling and reinstated the drug charges against the defendant.
In April 2011, the Florida Supreme Court dismissed the case against Jardines, opining that “there is simply nothing to prevent (police) agents from applying the procedure in an arbitrary or discriminatory manner, or based on whim and fancy, at the home of any citizen."
Florida state attorney, Pam Bondi, petitioned the United States Supreme Court, hoping that the highest U.S. court will overturn the Florida Supreme Court ruling. In her legal filings, Bondi argues that a dog's breathing air outside of a home is not the same as a search. In her petition, she also states that “most importantly, the Florida Supreme Court's decision strips law enforcement of an irreplaceable tool in detecting those who grow marijuana in their living rooms; construct meth labs in their kitchens; hide bodies in their basements; or make bombs in their garages."
In addition, 18 states and the territory of Guam filed briefs to support Bondi's petition.
To date, the U.S. Supreme Court has heard four dog sniffing cases: two cases involved the use of sniffer dogs after a traffic stop; one concerned airport luggage, and the last had to do with a package in transit.
This case is a landmark case, as it will be the first that includes both a drug sniffer dog and a private residence. The United States Supreme Court has held repeatedly that homes are entitled to greater privacy rights than public spaces or automobiles when police use dogs to search for illegal activity.
The case will be likely to be heard by the Court in April. The justices will probably issue a ruling in June.
What are your thoughts on this story? Did Franky and his nose violate the Fourth Amendment? Share your thoughts in a comment!
Charlotte Reed, a popular pet care and lifestyle expert, is also a notable entrepreneur. In 1995…
News & Blogs
Leave a Comment
No account? Sign up here.
Your Privacy
Comments (8)
Prohibition is overwhelmingly responsible for an immense increase in organized crime, international terrorism, rampant official corruption, a broken economy, mass unemployment and a serious undermining of international security and development.
Corporate greed and individual bigotry have accelerated us towards a situation where all the usual peaceful and democratic methods, which can usually be employed to reverse such acute damage, no longer function as our founders intended. Such a political impasse coupled with our great economic tribulation is precisely that which throughout history has often ignited extreme social upheaval and violent revolution.
“To function as the founders intended, our republic requires that the tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure.”. - Thomas Jefferson, in a letter to William Stephens Smith, November 13, 1787.
Legalization is the only answer!!!! Vote for Ron Paul 2012 to help save the nation.
this is a clear violation of the 4th amendment which states that we as citizens have the right to privacy in our homes from goverment intrusion and search. The argument that the dog is smelling particles outside of the home is untrue. The dogs is instructed to smell at the seem of the front door which is smelling the inside of the house and with out a warrant this is considered gathering details of what is in the house without probable cause. If a cop or anyone belonging to a goverment organization is allowed to bring a drug dog on to private property without a warrant that means they could simply walk up and down any private neighborhood with a drug dog and gain access to search any home they please. A new test of drug dogs out of california revealed that 18 dog tested were only correct 26% of the time. wow those are bad odds !
"Bondi argues that a dog's breathing air outside of a home is not the same as a search." The question to be asked is: Why was the dog there in the 1st place? His handler wasn't just out for a casual stroll. The INTENT of this whole scenario was to conduct a search. I think that's what the Supreme Court's sticking-point will be. As a 20-year USAF retiree, I'm fed up with how over-the-top our police are becoming. Police no longer 'serve and protect', it's all about getting another notch in their belts.
If all of you people are that concerned with our "rights" and are tired of all the "illegal search and seizures",then its time to protect our "rights" and the constitution. Get off the couch and turn off the TV. Go out and Vote Ron Paul 2012
I served 30 years in the military so I can have the right of a US citizen which protects us from illegal search and seizure. This is as illegal as they come. Can you prove that the dog is 100% right all the time? NO! Then can you prove he is smelling that house and not the one from which the wind directions is coming from? NO! It is illeagal search and seizure PERIOD! I support the Police and uphold the law every day but our Constitutional rights must come first.
One could argue that the interior of the house was never "searched" because the dog was outside, and could only smell particles that had already drifted outside the house. But that's a pretty academic distinction. http://lawblog.legalmatch.com/2012/01/11/home-inspections-drug-sniffing-...
The 4th Amendment is dead. I see this as just one more violation of its "protection".