Florida V. Jardines Case Study

1281 Words3 Pages
bulb-icon

Recommended: florida v jardines analysis

Of the various places and things the Fourth Amendment protects, “the home is first among equals.” Florida v. Jardines, 133 S.Ct. 1409, 1414 (2013). For Fourth Amendment purposes, places and things protected includes the home and its curtilage, which is the area “immediately surrounding and associated with the home.” Id. Where there is no reasonable expectation of privacy, there is no Fourth Amendment protection coverage. See Katz v. United States, 88 S. Ct. 507 (1967). To determine whether a legitimate expectation of privacy exists, the court must determine whether an individual possessed 1) an actual (subjective) expectation of privacy in the place or thing searched; and 2) whether the expectation is objective, one that society recognizes
Florida v. Jardines, 133 S.Ct. 1409 (2013). In Jardines, police officers took a drug-sniffing dog to the defendant’s front porch and the dog later gave a positive alert for narcotics. Id. at 1413. Following the alert, officers obtained a search warrant and located narcotics inside the defendant’s home. Id. The Supreme Court held officers’ use of the drug-sniffing dog to investigate the home and its curtilage constituted a search within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment. Id. at 1417-18. The Court reasoned that officers physically intruded onto defendant’s property when they entered upon the curtilage of the defendant’s home to gather incriminating evidence. Id. at
First, Reed’s entry with his trained narcotics detection dog falls short of a trespass. Under Jardines, a trespass occurs when an officer physically intrudes upon property or upon the curtilage of a home to gather incriminating evidence. Florida v. Jardines, 133 S. Ct. 1409, 1417 (2013). Unlike Jardines, Reed’s actions does not constitute a trespass because Reed and the trained narcotics detection dog did not physical intrude upon Appellant’s apartment or its curtilage, but rather entered upon the common hallway. In comparing Jardines to the present case, the two are distinctively different. A front porch adjoined to a home and a common hallway of an apartment building are in no way similar and are not be held to the same level of constitutional

Show More
Related

  • Ward V Texas Case Study

    1219 Words  | 3 Pages

    Under the California Penal Code, officers are granted permission to search Johnson under the conditions of his probation. While acting upon this, they discovered multiple areas of the house in which controlled substances were hidden. Officers argued that by searching Johnson without a warrant, they prevented the potential destruction of evidence.

    Read More

  • Florida versus Jardines

    592 Words  | 2 Pages

    Facts: On November 2006 the Miami-Dade police department received an anonymous tip that the home of Joelis Jardines was been used to grow marihuana. On December 2006 two detectives along with a trained drug sniffing dog approached Jardines home. At the front door the dog signaled for drugs, as well as the detective who smelled the marihuana coming from inside. Detectives then wrote an affidavit and obtained a search warrant that confirmed the growth of marihuana in Jardine’s home. Jardines was then charged for drug trafficking. Jardines then tried to suppress all evidence and say that in theory during the drug sniffing dog was an illegal search under the 4th amendment. The trial courts then ruled to suppress all evidence, the state appellate courts then appealed and reversed, the standing concluding that there was no illegal search and the dog’s presence did not require a warrant. The Florida supreme court then reverse the appellate court’s decision and concluded that a dog sniffing a home for investigativ...

    Read More

  • Georgia Vs. Randolph Case Study

    1227 Words  | 3 Pages

    This case is about Scott Randolph, who’s home was searched without a warrant. Due to this “corrupted” search, police ended up finding cocaine in his home. As a matter of fact both Randolph and his wife Janet Randolph were present during the search, it’s stated that Randolph’s wife gave permission to search the house. However Randolph denied to give that consistent, but police believed that the wife’s permission was all they needed. After the encounter with the drugs, Randolph was arrested for drug possession. This case was taken to trail and both the appellate court and Georgie Supreme court believed that the search of Randolph's home was unconstitutional.

    Read More

  • Florida V. Harris Case Study

    949 Words  | 2 Pages

    On June 26, 2006, a Sheriff Officer of the State of Florida, William Wheetley and his drug detection dog, Aldo, were on patrol. Furthermore, Officer Wheetley conducted a traffic stop of the defendant Clayton Harris for expired tags on his truck. As Officer Wheetley approached the truck, he noticed that Harris was acting nervous/anxious, more than he should have, and he also noticed an open can of beer in the cup holder next to him. At that moment, Officer Wheetley knew that he was hiding something, he requested to search

    Read More

  • Terry V. Ohio Case Study

    1225 Words  | 3 Pages

    The controversy in this case was did the search and seizure of Terry and the men he was with violate the Fourth Amendment? This case tried to determine the role of the Fourth Amendment when police are investigating suspicious circumstances on the street, and when there is probable cause to search someone that is displaying questionable behavior (Justia, n.d.).

    Read More

  • Schmerber V. California Case Analysis

    1279 Words  | 3 Pages

    The Court held that because of the “special facts” the “attempt to secure evidence of blood-alcohol content in this case was an appropriate incident to petitioner’s arrest.” Under current jurisprudence, we would construe the language about “special facts” as relating to the exigent circumstances exception to the Fourth Amendment – which resists categorical rules – and instead focuses on the need for the intrusion and the availability of a warrant. However, the language also justifies the search as “incident to petitioner’s arrest,” which would indicate that the test was upheld as a search incident-to-arrest. In situations where it is appropriate, that has been described as a “categorical” exception to the warrant requirement that does not require any case-by-case

    Read More

  • Pros And Cons Of The Fourth Amendment

    733 Words  | 2 Pages

    Harris" while the defendant Harris refuse permission to search his car, the sniff dog alerted the officer in charge about the controlled substance in the car handle which stands for a probable cause (Constitution Daily, Folrida v. Harris). With the above three case in mind, one can conclude that the IV Amendment is as easy to violate as easily as it protects the citizen. Sniff dogs are one of many other cases that has contributed to the questioning the IV Amendment along with racial profiling. Another major issue that has kept the controversy of 'unreasonable search and seizure ' is the use of GPS Surveillance on a suspect vehicle. 'United States v. Jones ' the case where judge ruled the evidence obtained were by usurping Jones, hence not acceptable in the court. Jones was arrested by the use of GPS to track his activity for a month, without judicial approval (Body Politic, United States v. Jones). Since the fourth amendment provides protection for search and trespass, the method was direct violation of the constitutional right and Jones was set free from all the charges. Although Jones was found in possession of drugs and should be behind bars, officials should have followed proper protocol to rightfully arrest him. People like Jones should be punished, but being protected by the constitution the proper procedure must be

    Read More

  • Hall v. Florida

    2040 Words  | 5 Pages

    Defendant Freddie Lee Hall filed a motion to declare Florida Statute 921.137 (Florida Statute) as contrary to Atkins v. Virginia (2002) and, thus, unconstitutional. Hall, convicted in 1981 for the murder of Karol Hurst, was initially sentenced to death in September 1982. For three years, he fought his sentence, filing “a motion to vacate, a petition for writ of habeas corpus and an application for a stay of execution, all of which were denied” . In 1986, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals heard his appeal and reversed part of the lower court’s ruling, a decision granted when the court found Hall “entitled to a hearing on the issues of his absence from the courtroom and whether he deliberately bypassed his ineffective assistance of counsel claim” .

    Read More

  • Essay On Exceptions To The Fourth Amendment

    1445 Words  | 3 Pages

    The 4th amendment provides citizens protections from unreasonable searches and seizures from law enforcement. Search and seizure cases are governed by the 4th amendment and case law. The United States Supreme Court has crafted exceptions to the 4th amendment where law enforcement would ordinarily need to get a warrant to conduct a search. One of the exceptions to the warrant requirement falls under vehicle stops. Law enforcement can search a vehicle incident to an individual’s arrest if the individual unsecured by the police and is in reaching distance of the passenger compartment. Disjunctive to the first exception a warrantless search can be conducted if there is reasonable belief

    Read More

  • Arguments Against The 4th Amendment

    699 Words  | 2 Pages

    The Fourth Amendment provides people with the right “to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures.” Courts have long recognized that the Forth Amendment protected individuals from unjustified police intrusions into one’s person, home, car, or other possessions, but few practical protection mechanisms existed. To preserve these constitutional guarantees, the Supreme Court established standards by which police officers must abide. One such protection has been the probable cause — a belief that the person committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime. In order to uphold an arrest or seizure, courts have required a probable cause combined with either a warrant or circumstances

    Read More

  • 4th Amendment

    1098 Words  | 3 Pages

    modern law, they have a variety of items, including intoxicating liquors, gambling implements, counterfeiters' tools, burglars' tools, smuggled goods, obscene literature, narcotics, illegal firearms and any article the possession of which is a crime or which may be used in evidence. (Encarta Online) The warrant must specify the place where the search is to be made and the property to be seized. An officer cannot get a warrant from a judge in any circumstance. (Grolier Encyclopedia) The officer may have to give a reasonable cause. As ruled in the case of Illinois v. Gates in 1983, ?to establish probable cause, one must show a probability of criminal activity; a prima facie hearing is not required.? (Illinois v. Gates) The accused has the right to fight the grounds when the war...

    Read More

  • The Case Of The State Of Florida Vs. Chad Heins Case Study

    1611 Words  | 4 Pages

    The case of the State of Florida vs. Chad Heins happened in 1994 in Mayport, Florida. It was on April 17, 1994 that Tina Heins, who was pregnant at the time, was found stabbed to death in her apartment. She shared an apartment with her husband Jeremy Heins and Jeremy’s brother Chad Heins. At the time of the incident Jeremy Heins was on a ship because he worked in the navy but Chad Heins was at the apartment. Before the incident happened Chad Heins, the defendant, who was nineteen at the time, used his brothers license to buy alcohol at a strip club near the apartment. After that Chad Heins had went to another bar where his brothers license got confiscated. He left the bar around 12:45 a.m. and went back to the apartment. He then washed his

    Read More

  • Arizona V. Hicks Summary

    695 Words  | 2 Pages

    Arizona V. Hicks discusses the legal requirements law enforcement needs to meet to justify the search and seizure of a person’s property under the plain view doctrine. The United States Supreme Court delivered their opinion of this case in 1987, the decision is found in the United States reports, beginning on page 321, of volume 480. This basis of this case involves Hicks being indicted for robbery, after police found stolen property in Hick’s home during a non-related search of the apartment. Hicks had accidentally discharged a firearm into the apartment below him, injuring the resident of that apartment. Police responded and searched Hicks apartment to determine the identity of the shooter, recover the weapon, and to locate other victims.

    Read More

  • Persuasive Essay On The Fourth Amendment

    708 Words  | 2 Pages

    One of the major court decisions for the “Search Incident to Arrest” was Gant vs. Arizona. Rodney Gant was arrested for driving with a suspended driving license. When the police officers arrested him and had him hand cuffed in the back seat of the police car, they then did a search on his vehicle. The police then didn’t have a reason to think there were illegal things in his car just from driving with a suspended license. The search warrant to arrest states that a police officer may conduct a warrantless search if there are any suspensions found within the area. In Gant versus Arizona this was not the case. The police officer had no reason to search Rodney’s car just because he had a suspended drivers license. As the police officer was searching the car he found cocaine in a jacket pocket in the back seat. A previous case ruling such as New York versus Belton, they had made the bright-line rule. The bright-line says that a police can search the compartment on the passenger side of a vehicle or any containers that are within the reach or “grabbing area” of the arrestee. Later over the years there was another court casing, Thornton versus United States. During the courts ruling they had changed the Belton rule again. It now said that the police cannot pursue a warrantless search if the arrestee is secured and locked up in a police car and has no access to the inside of the vehicle. After hearing the revised rule, the court did not give up. In the final courts ruling, a police can still perform a warrantless search only if there is any reason to believe there is other crime related evidence in the vehicle. Since the time of Gants arrest the police had no suspicions to conduct a warrantless search because of a suspended driving license, Gant

    Read More

  • Importance Of The 4th Amendment

    1407 Words  | 3 Pages

    A-58). It also requires “a warrant that specifically describes the place to be searched, the person involved, and suspicious things to be seized” (Goldfield et al. A- 58). The Fourth Amendment protects the privacy of the people by preventing public officials from searching homes or personal belonging without reason. It also determines whether “someone 's privacy is diminished by a governmental search or seizure” (Heritage). This amendment protects citizens from having evidence which was seized illegally “used against the one whose privacy was invaded” (Heritage). This gives police incentive to abide by the Fourth Amendment. The Fourth Amendment protects a person’s privacy “only when a person has a legitimate expectation to privacy” (FindLaw). This means the police cannot search person’s home, briefcase, or purse. The Fourth Amendment also requires there to be certain requirements before a warrant can be issued. The Fourth Amendment requires a warrant “when the police search a home or an office, unless the search must happen immediately, and there is no opportunity to obtain a warrant” (Heritage). The Fourth Amendment protects the privacy of the people, but also the safety of the people. When there is probable cause, a government official can destroy property or subdue a suspect. The Fourth Amendment prevents government officials from harassing the public.

    Read More

More about Florida V. Jardines Case Study

Open Document