CRIMPRO DIGESTS G01
ATTY. ARNO V. SANIDAD
1) FLORIDA v.JOELIS JARDINES 569 US ___ (2013)
Scalia, J. | Curtilage as part of home
ISSUE/S:
Whether using a drug-sniffing dog on a homeowners porch to investigate the
contents of the home is a search within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment?
FACTS:
In 2006, Detective William Pedraja of Miami-Dede Police Department
received an unverified tip that marijuana was being grown in the home of
respondent Joelis Jardines.
One month later, the Police and the Drug Enforcement Administration sent a
joint surveillance team to Jardines home. Detective PEdraja was part of the
team. He watched the home for 15minutes and saw no vehicles in the
driveway and could not see inside because the blinds were drawn.
Det. Pedraja approached Jardines home accompanied by another detective
(Bartelt) who is a trained canine handler with his sniffing dog.
Sniffing Dog was trained to detect the scnet of marijuana, cocaine, heroin
and several other drugs which is determined by its behavioral changes which
is recognizable by its handler.
As the dog approached Jardines front porch, it apparently sensed some
drug odor and energetically explored the area which is called Bracketing.
After sniffing the base of the front door, the dog sat which is the trained
behavior upon discovering the odors strongest point. They left the scene
and reported a positive alert for narcotics.
On this basis, Pedraja then applied for and received a warrant to search
Jardines home; when the warrant was executed Jardines attempted to flle
but was arrested and the search revealed marijuana plants. Jardines was
charged with trafficking cannabis.
Now, Jardines is moving to suppress the marijuana plants on the grounds
that the canine investigation was an unreasonable search. Trial Court
granted the motion; Florida 3rd District Court of Appeals reversed.
HELD:
1. Florida SC reinstated TCs decision and held that the use of the trained
narcotics dog to investigate Jardines home was violative of the Fourth
Amendment (Right against unreasonable searches and seizures in PH)
because it was not supported with probable cause; rendering the search
warrant invalid.
RATIO
2. IS THE FRONT PORCH A PART OF HOME AND CONSTITUTIONALLY
PROTECTED?
Fourth Amendment indicates with some precision the places and
things encompassed by its protectionspersons, houses, papers and
effects.
TOPIC: PARTIISearch And Seizures
AUTHOR: WENCESLAO
In Hester v. US: Fourth Amendment does not, therefore, prevent all
investigations conducted on private property; for example an officer may
gather information in open field even if those fields that are privately owned
because such fields are not enumerated in the Amendments text.
However, when it comes to Fourth Amendmentthe HOME is first
among equals. (they have priority over others). The very core of the Fourth
Amendent is the right of a man to retreat into his own home and there
be free from unreasonable governmental intrusion.
Question: is a CURTILAGE part of home? Curtilage is the area
immediately surrounding and associated with the home and is part of
the home itself for Fourth Amendment purposes.
in this casethere is no doubt that a FRONT PORCH IS A
CURTILAGE (it is a classic exemplar of an area adjacent to the home) and
that the officers entered it.
3. IS THE INVESTIGATION BY THE OFFICERS IN JARDINES HOME VALID?
Boyd v US laid down the general rule that our law holds the property of
every man so sacred that no man can set his foot upon his neighbor;s close
without his leave.
In this case, the detectives had all four of their feet planted on the
constitutionally protected area of Jardines home, Jardines did not give them
his leave (permission) for them to be there.
Customary investigation from previous cases: Police officer not armed
with a warrant may approach a home and knock, precisely because that no
more than a private citizen might do. In other words, there should be an
invitation to enter the home.
But a canine investigation is something else. There is NO CUSTOMARY
INVESTIGATION to do that.
4. IS THE USE OF TRAINED POLICE DOGS TO INVESTIGATE A SEARCH
WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE FOURTH AMENDMENT? YES.
US v. Place: Use of sniff dogs for luggages at an airport did not violate the
Fourth Amendent because the dog does not expose the privacy of the
luggage owner in the same manner as manual search of a police officer.
City of Indianapolis v. Edmond: Sniff dogs only discloses the presence or
absence of narcotics and did not involve government intrusion.
Illinois v. Caballes: Sniff doges could only reveal the presence and
absence of a contraband and did not involve legitimate private interest.
Based on the foregoing, the Court ruled that governments use of
trained police dogs to investigate the home and its immediate
surroundings is a search within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment.