Petitioner Vs Jardines Research Paper
Ashley Giamattei
October 11, 2013
POL 250- Smith
Florida, Petitioner v. Joelis Jardines
In this paper I’m going to detail the judicial process of a Supreme Court case, which was the first of its kind. The Supreme Court did not have original jurisdiction over this case. It traveled through each juridical system before reaching the Supreme Court. This case was of interest to them, not to question it the defendant was guilty, but were his constitutional rights violated in the process of prosecuting him. This case began with an anonymous tip that the defendant was growing illegal contraband at his home. The DEA assigned Detective Padraja and Detective Bartelt to sit on the home. After making the decision that no one was home the …show more content…
detectives approached the home accompanied by a trained drug sniffing dog. The officers allowed the dog sniffed around the defendant’s porch and door. He then gave the alert to his handler that there were narcotics inside the home. With this information now obtained, the officers proceeded to get a warrant to search the premises. Upon entry they found marijuana being grown. Jardines was then charged with trafficking cannabis (Florida v. Jardines 2013).
When Jardines appeared in Discretionary Court October 22, 2008, (Florida v.
Jardines 11-564) he requested that the evidence found on his property be inadmissible to court (Florida v. Jardines 2013). His reasoning for this was, according to the constitution, his Fourth Amendment rights were violated by conducting an illegal search on to his property. The dog used gave the alert of narcotics without having obtained a warrant prior to the “search.” Fourth Amendment says, “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” (U.S. Constitution). The Discretionary Court ruled that the plants be inadmissible, in favor of Jardines. This did not sit well with the prosecution, since the plants were their case so they filled an appeal. This was filled with the Florida Third District Court of Appeals (Florida v. Jardines, 2013). They decided to overturn the Discretionary Courts decision. Using the method writ of certiorari, Jardines filed a petition for discretionary review, which is how this case made it to the Supreme Court (Florida v. Jardines,
2013).
While this case was going through the judicial process, preparing to be heard by the Supreme Court, nine brief amici curiae were filed: Texas, Wayne County, Michigan, National Police Canine Association and Police K-9 Magazine, United States, Texas, et al.(again), Cato Institute, Fourth Amendment Scholars, National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, Rutherford Institute. (Florida v. Jardines 11-564). This case was argued October 31, 2012 in front of the Supreme Court. The opinion of the court was delivered by Justice Scalia, March 26, 2013. The Florida State Supreme Court sided with the original decision made by trial court. The Supreme Court stated “The government use of a trained police dog to investigate the home and its immediate surroundings is a search with in the meaning of the Fourth Amendment,” (Scalia, 2013) ruling in favor of Jardines. Because this case was the first of its kind, it now sets the precedent for any like it in the future. In the event that a similar case occurs, a police dog sniffing around on someone’s property is considered a search in that persons Fourth Amendment and any evidence found will be inadmissible in court.
The main point of Justice Scalia’s opinion for the Court focused on property rights. He stated that bringing a dog to conduct a forensic search on someone’s porch constitutes a trespass at common law and, under the reasoning of last term’s GPS case, United States v. Jones, constituted a search subject to the limitations of the Fourth Amendment (Scalia, 2013). Even though people can travel onto others property for other business, having a dog to look for evidence is unconstitutional. If a member of the public did that, Justice Scalia observed, it would “inspire most of us to – well, call the police” (Scalia, 2013) When the police trespassed onto private property to conduct a search, a warrant should’ve been present beforehand.
Justice Kagan’s concurrence was basically saying that this case was an easy one under either a property, or privacy based Fourth Amendment Act (Kagan, 2013). She makes the statement basically saying, “that no one would think it reasonable for a stranger to come to one’s porch with a pair of high-powered binoculars and peer through the windows. In the concurrence’s view, the dog sniff in this case was no different and no less an invasion of the occupant’s reasonable expectation of privacy,” (Kagan, 2013). Justices Ginsburg and Sotomayor joined the concurrence.
The four Justice dissent found no support in the common law for the majority’s conclusion that the police conduct here constituted a trespass. The majority acknowledged that the public, including the police, have license to approach the front door. Justice Alito found nothing special about the fact that the police brought a drug sniffing dog with them (after all, “Dogs have been domesticated for about 12,000 years; they were ubiquitous in both this country and Britain at the time of the adoption of the Fourth Amendment.”) (Alito, 2013). The dissenters also did not view the dog sniff as invading any reasonable expectation of privacy given that one can expect that odors will waft outside of a house and, possibly, into public areas where there is no question a dog could sniff for evidence of drugs without constituting a search (Alito, 2013). Justice Kennedy, Breyer, and Chief Justice Roberts joined him in dissent.
Works Cited
Florida v Jardines, (2013) (Alito, dissenting)
Florida v Jardines, (2013) (Kagan, concurring)
Florida v Jardines, 569 U.S 1-10 (2013)
Florida, petitioner v. Joelis Jardine. (2013, June 3). Retrieved from http://www.supremecourt.gov/Search.aspx?FileName=/docketfiles/11-564.htm
U.S Constitution. Amend. XIV, § 1.
October 11, 2013
POL 250- Smith
Florida, Petitioner v. Joelis Jardines
In this paper I’m going to detail the judicial process of a Supreme Court case, which was the first of its kind. The Supreme Court did not have original jurisdiction over this case. It traveled through each juridical system before reaching the Supreme Court. This case was of interest to them, not to question it the defendant was guilty, but were his constitutional rights violated in the process of prosecuting him. This case began with an anonymous tip that the defendant was growing illegal contraband at his home. The DEA assigned Detective Padraja and Detective Bartelt to sit on the home. After making the decision that no one was home the …show more content…
detectives approached the home accompanied by a trained drug sniffing dog. The officers allowed the dog sniffed around the defendant’s porch and door. He then gave the alert to his handler that there were narcotics inside the home. With this information now obtained, the officers proceeded to get a warrant to search the premises. Upon entry they found marijuana being grown. Jardines was then charged with trafficking cannabis (Florida v. Jardines 2013).
When Jardines appeared in Discretionary Court October 22, 2008, (Florida v.
Jardines 11-564) he requested that the evidence found on his property be inadmissible to court (Florida v. Jardines 2013). His reasoning for this was, according to the constitution, his Fourth Amendment rights were violated by conducting an illegal search on to his property. The dog used gave the alert of narcotics without having obtained a warrant prior to the “search.” Fourth Amendment says, “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” (U.S. Constitution). The Discretionary Court ruled that the plants be inadmissible, in favor of Jardines. This did not sit well with the prosecution, since the plants were their case so they filled an appeal. This was filled with the Florida Third District Court of Appeals (Florida v. Jardines, 2013). They decided to overturn the Discretionary Courts decision. Using the method writ of certiorari, Jardines filed a petition for discretionary review, which is how this case made it to the Supreme Court (Florida v. Jardines,
2013).
While this case was going through the judicial process, preparing to be heard by the Supreme Court, nine brief amici curiae were filed: Texas, Wayne County, Michigan, National Police Canine Association and Police K-9 Magazine, United States, Texas, et al.(again), Cato Institute, Fourth Amendment Scholars, National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, Rutherford Institute. (Florida v. Jardines 11-564). This case was argued October 31, 2012 in front of the Supreme Court. The opinion of the court was delivered by Justice Scalia, March 26, 2013. The Florida State Supreme Court sided with the original decision made by trial court. The Supreme Court stated “The government use of a trained police dog to investigate the home and its immediate surroundings is a search with in the meaning of the Fourth Amendment,” (Scalia, 2013) ruling in favor of Jardines. Because this case was the first of its kind, it now sets the precedent for any like it in the future. In the event that a similar case occurs, a police dog sniffing around on someone’s property is considered a search in that persons Fourth Amendment and any evidence found will be inadmissible in court.
The main point of Justice Scalia’s opinion for the Court focused on property rights. He stated that bringing a dog to conduct a forensic search on someone’s porch constitutes a trespass at common law and, under the reasoning of last term’s GPS case, United States v. Jones, constituted a search subject to the limitations of the Fourth Amendment (Scalia, 2013). Even though people can travel onto others property for other business, having a dog to look for evidence is unconstitutional. If a member of the public did that, Justice Scalia observed, it would “inspire most of us to – well, call the police” (Scalia, 2013) When the police trespassed onto private property to conduct a search, a warrant should’ve been present beforehand.
Justice Kagan’s concurrence was basically saying that this case was an easy one under either a property, or privacy based Fourth Amendment Act (Kagan, 2013). She makes the statement basically saying, “that no one would think it reasonable for a stranger to come to one’s porch with a pair of high-powered binoculars and peer through the windows. In the concurrence’s view, the dog sniff in this case was no different and no less an invasion of the occupant’s reasonable expectation of privacy,” (Kagan, 2013). Justices Ginsburg and Sotomayor joined the concurrence.
The four Justice dissent found no support in the common law for the majority’s conclusion that the police conduct here constituted a trespass. The majority acknowledged that the public, including the police, have license to approach the front door. Justice Alito found nothing special about the fact that the police brought a drug sniffing dog with them (after all, “Dogs have been domesticated for about 12,000 years; they were ubiquitous in both this country and Britain at the time of the adoption of the Fourth Amendment.”) (Alito, 2013). The dissenters also did not view the dog sniff as invading any reasonable expectation of privacy given that one can expect that odors will waft outside of a house and, possibly, into public areas where there is no question a dog could sniff for evidence of drugs without constituting a search (Alito, 2013). Justice Kennedy, Breyer, and Chief Justice Roberts joined him in dissent.
Works Cited
Florida v Jardines, (2013) (Alito, dissenting)
Florida v Jardines, (2013) (Kagan, concurring)
Florida v Jardines, 569 U.S 1-10 (2013)
Florida, petitioner v. Joelis Jardine. (2013, June 3). Retrieved from http://www.supremecourt.gov/Search.aspx?FileName=/docketfiles/11-564.htm
U.S Constitution. Amend. XIV, § 1.