U.S. Supreme Court limits use of drug-sniffing police dogs outside homes

The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday upheld a Florida high court ruling limiting the use of drug-sniffing police dogs outside homes.

The Florida Supreme Court in April 2011 had ruled that Miami-Dade police violated a man’s right to privacy when they used a police dog outside the front door without a search warrant.

The man, Joelis Jardines, had challenged his arrest for marijuana trafficking. In Jardines’ case, Miami-Dade detectives zeroed in on his house after they were tipped off by an anonymous caller to the “CrimeStoppers” hotline. One month later, detectives and agents employed a drug detection dog, Franky, who alerted his handler to the smell of marijuana emanating from the front door.

With that, detectives secured a search warrant and Jardines was arrested.

U.S. Justice Antonin Scalia, writing the majority opinion, said that the use of police dogs outside a person’s home indeed constitutes “a search” under the Constitution’s Fourth Amendment, which guards against unreasonable searches and seizures.

“This right would be of little practical value if the state’s agents could stand in a home’s porch or side garden and trawl for evidence with impunity,” Scalia wrote.

Scalia was joined by justices Clarence Thomas, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor. Dissenting were Samuel Alito, John Roberts, Anthony Kennedy and Stephen Breyer.

Read more here: http://www.miamiherald.com/2013/03/26/3307280/in-miami-case-us-supreme-court.html#storylink=cpy

Now they need to focus on traffic stops

If you ever get pulled over by a K9 unit, it's pretty much said and done you're gonna get searched, even if you say no and have no drugs in the car, or the faintest scent of drugs.

I think cars are under the "plain view" doctrine, even though the fourth amendment seems pretty unambiguous to me:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized

Click to expand...

Cars are part of "effects", which is an archaic synonym of property. Also, if you've hidden something, how is it in plain view?

More info on the (stupid) motor vehicle exception here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motor_vehicle_exception

23536 said:

More info on the (stupid) motor vehicle exception here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motor_vehicle_exception

Click to expand...

That "exception" doesn't say anything about "canine"/"K9" or "dog" anywhere, yet probable cause is somehow still valid based on the sole "indication" by a police-trained pet.

I myself have fallen victim to bogus "indication" in my vehicle. Searched for an hour and 20 minutes, and then written a warning for "speeding" yet no radar speed (in TX this is not a moving violation, simply "looked like I was going too fast" - the equivalent of having a turning signal out or something. Or appearing to... Total BS stop)

I'm sure if I had any drugs I'd have been acquitted, point is that they would have seized the drugs (and/or money) and I would have spent the night in the slammer, car towed (and/or seized).

severely etarded said:

That "exception" doesn't say anything about "canine"/"K9" or "dog" anywhere, yet probable cause is somehow still valid based on the sole "indication" by a police-trained pet.

Click to expand...

That's just the thing: if the dog's alert is not sufficient probable cause to search a house, why is it sufficient probable cause to search a car? It seems like the Supreme Court is being arbitrary here. Property is property.

I can't imagine the founding fathers tacitly exempting carriages from this amendment.

I had a brief job very far from where I live, so I slept in my car in a lot near the place two nights a week during that time.

I smoke indica cannabis to help me sleep. A K-9 unit rolled up about midnight and knocked on my window. When I rolled it down, a cloud of smoke floated out and all around the officer standing outside my car. The lights made the smoke all the more visible.

I showed him my doctor's recommendation. He said he could smell the raw cannabis and wanted to know if i had any more. I said I did not. He wanted to search my car. I said I had smoked the last of it and was going to sleep in my car because I had a job, etc. I said I would not be driving, I would be sleeping, then going to work the next day, then going home.

He said ok. He said I could sleep there that night but if he saw me there again on other nights, he would search my car.

I was really lucky. I wouuld probably be in jail now if the dog in that officer's car had been allowed out.

Unless they radically change how police work and what they're allowed to do, this is a little baby step and doesn't really stop anything

I'm always paranoid because I'm sure just about every shred of clothing I own has trace marijuana smell- so even if I don't have weed on me- a police dog would think I did, and they'd search me/my car

I think that this decision is an important step in the right direction.
While possessing and using the plants that nature gives us is illegal (!!?), this is about the most we can hope for, maybe.
Once plants and chemicals are all legal, things will be very different.
(and I would have a very different take if the dogs were searching for dirty nukes or biological weapons instead of drugs)