This is an interesting 4th Amendment ruling.
The police brought a drug sniffing dog to Jardine's front porch, where it alerted. They obtained a search warrant and found marijuana plants inside his house. Jardine claimed it was an un-Constitutional search and the evidence obtained should be suppressed. The Florida Supreme Court agreed. The case was taken to the US Supreme Court and the Justice's agreed with the Florida court.
The case turns on the core 4th Amendment principle that the right of a man to retreat into his own home and there be free from unreasonable governmental intrusion. (Silverman v. United States, 365 U. S. 505, 511.) Since the front porch is deemed a part of the home for 4th Amendment purposes, legally called "the curtilage," the police should have asked Jardine's for permission to bring the dog onto his porch. They did not, so everything from that point became an illegal search and the evidence must be suppressed.
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/11-564_5426.pdf
I think this is a good, soundly reasoned opinion which protects our 4th Amendment rights. There is nothing in this ruling which would prevent the police from seeking a warrant based upon something they saw from the street, but they cannot violate a person's home turf to begin an investigation without the homeowners consent. Absent such a ruling, there would be no hinderance to the police routinely running dogs around your house to see if you're up to something or worse. Perhaps they could even peep into your windows and you couldn't stop them.
The more I read opinions from the Roberts court, the more impressed I am. At the time of Robert's appointment as Chief Justice, I thought he'd be just another political hack who would rule based upon political ideology rather than the Constitution and the law.
Happily, I can say I was wrong, very wrong.
The police brought a drug sniffing dog to Jardine's front porch, where it alerted. They obtained a search warrant and found marijuana plants inside his house. Jardine claimed it was an un-Constitutional search and the evidence obtained should be suppressed. The Florida Supreme Court agreed. The case was taken to the US Supreme Court and the Justice's agreed with the Florida court.
The case turns on the core 4th Amendment principle that the right of a man to retreat into his own home and there be free from unreasonable governmental intrusion. (Silverman v. United States, 365 U. S. 505, 511.) Since the front porch is deemed a part of the home for 4th Amendment purposes, legally called "the curtilage," the police should have asked Jardine's for permission to bring the dog onto his porch. They did not, so everything from that point became an illegal search and the evidence must be suppressed.
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/11-564_5426.pdf
I think this is a good, soundly reasoned opinion which protects our 4th Amendment rights. There is nothing in this ruling which would prevent the police from seeking a warrant based upon something they saw from the street, but they cannot violate a person's home turf to begin an investigation without the homeowners consent. Absent such a ruling, there would be no hinderance to the police routinely running dogs around your house to see if you're up to something or worse. Perhaps they could even peep into your windows and you couldn't stop them.
The more I read opinions from the Roberts court, the more impressed I am. At the time of Robert's appointment as Chief Justice, I thought he'd be just another political hack who would rule based upon political ideology rather than the Constitution and the law.
Happily, I can say I was wrong, very wrong.
