Fourth Amendment United States Constitution

FOURTH AMENDMENT UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION

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 persons or things to be seized. The K-9 Search Case John Jingle v. State of Florida

The Miami-Dade County Police Department received a Crime Stoppers tip that marijuana was being grown at the home of John Jingle. One month later a detective went to Mr. Jingle’s home at 7 a.m. He watched the home for fifteen minutes. There were no vehicles in the driveway, the blinds were closed, and no observable activity.

After fifteen minutes, the dog handler arrived with the drug detection dog. The handler placed the dog on a leash and accompanied the dog up to the front door of the home. The dog alerted to the scent of contraband.

The handler told the detective that the dog had a positive alert for the odor of narcotics. The detective went up to the front door for the first time, and smelled marijuana. The detective also observed that the air conditioning unit had been running constantly for fifteen minutes or so, without ever switching off. (Note: To grow marijuana high intensity light bulbs are used which create heat. This causes the air conditioning unit to run continuously without cycling off.)

The detective applied for a search warrant, which was issued. While waiting for the search warrant, the home remained under surveillance for several hours by the police department and the Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) of the Federal Government. When the search was conducted, police found marijuana growing inside the home. John Jingle was arrested.

TRIAL COURT PROCEEDINGS & RULING: At trial, attorneys for John Jingle filed a motion to suppress the evidence. Jingle’s attorneys argued that the sniff test by the drug dog was an illegal search and it violated Jingle’s Fourth Amendment rights because the police should have had the search warrant BEFORE bringing the drug dog to the house. The trial court agreed that the evidence was unlawfully obtained and decided that it could not be used at trial.

THE APPEAL: The State of Florida prosecuting Mr. Jingle appealed the trial court’s ruling to the District Court of Appeal (DCA). The DCA disagreed with the trial court’s decision stating that no illegal search occurred and the dog sniff test did not violate the Fourth Amendment. The appellate court further stated that the officer had the right to go up to Mr. Jingle’s front door without a warrant to conduct a sniff test. Mr. Jingle is appealing the DCA decision to the Florida Supreme Court who is now ready to hear oral arguments in this case. Constitutional Question the Justices Must Answer:

Is a “sniff test” by a drug detection dog conducted at the front door of a private home considered a “search” under the Fourth Amendment?

Case Precedent - Previous Case Law:

In United States v. Place, that Court ruled that the luggage was not opened and therefore did not expose anything that was considered to be PRIVATE inside. This was much less intrusive than a typical search of police rummaging through the contents of the luggage.

In Illinois v. Caballes, 543 U.S. 405 (2005), the United States Supreme Court ruled the same as above; that an exterior sniff of an automobile does not require entry into the car and is not designed to disclose any information other than the presence or absence of narcotics.

In United States v. Jacobson, the United States Supreme Court ruled that just like a sniff test, the cocaine test only reveals the presence or absence of narcotics.

In Kyllo v. United States, the United States Supreme Court ruled that because the Government uses a device that is not in general public use to explore details of the home that would previously have been unknowable without physical intrusion, the use of the device is considered a search. PETITIONER’S ARGUMENTS – The K-9 Search Case –

MAY IT PLEASE THE COURT. MY NAME IS ______AND I REPRESENT THE PETITIONER, JOHN JINGLE, WHO ARGUES THAT THE K-9 SNIFF DID VIOLATE THE FOURTH AMENDMENT.

Jingle’s Arguments (against the dog sniff) include:

1. Our founding fathers created the Fourth Amendment to protect us from governmental intrusion in our homes and warrantless searches.

2. We need to give greater protection to a “house” because it is specifically listed in the wording of the Fourth Amendment.

3. The dog sniff is a search because it revealed what was inside the home. The police needed probable cause and a warrant to search.

4. All other cases discussed regarding a dog sniff – of packages, cars and luggage –occurred in the open public where there is no expectation of privacy.

Try to think of other arguments against the dog sniff. Write these arguments on the note pad at your seat. – The K-9 Search Case – Supreme Court Justices

Questions for the Petitioner - John Jingle (against the dog sniff)

Directions: Justices ask questions to the attorneys to understand the arguments and to clarify any legal interpretations. Your job is to listen to both sets of arguments, ask questions for understanding, interpret the law presented and make a decision.

Justices may take notes, ask their own questions, use the questions below or reword them. Questions must be relevant to the case and to the attorney’s position that is arguing.

1. Past court cases have ruled that a dog sniff is not even a “search.” What makes the home different, or more important, than a car or luggage being sniffed?

2. The dog never entered the home to begin with so how could this be considered a “SEARCH”?

3. Is the Fourth Amendment supposed to protect those things ANYONE can observe no matter where it is on our property?

4. Does the Fourth Amendment protect us from the smells coming from inside a home?

5. Are drugs protected by the Fourth Amendment even though they are illegal in this country? Should we be protecting them if they are inside the house?

6. What are better ways for the police to balance fighting crime and protecting the public with the public’s right to privacy?

Try to think of other questions for the attorneys who are against the dog sniff by the police. RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS – The K-9 Search Case –

MAY IT PLEASE THE COURT. MY NAME IS ______AND I REPRESENT THE RESPONDENT, THE STATE OF FLORIDA, WHO ARGUES THAT THE K-9 SNIFF DID NOT VIOLATE THE FOURTH AMENDMENT

State of Florida’s Arguments (for the dog sniff) include:

1. The police officers and dog did not go INSIDE the home. This was conducted on the outside of the home.

2. The Police were in an area where they were allowed to be: on the walkway to the front door where any visitor may appear at any time.

3. There is no expectation of privacy in illegal drugs.

4. You cannot rely on the ruling in Kyllo (using thermal imaging devices) because a dog’s nose is not an electronic device or technology.

5. This is not a search but only a “sniff” because it is only showing what is illegal and not revealing anything else that might be inside the home.

6. The anonymous tip provided the officers a reason to be at the home. They weren’t there just on a whim, but because of a lawful and legitimate reason.

Try to think of other arguments for the use of the dog sniff. Write these arguments on the note pad at your seat. – The K-9 Search Case – Supreme Court Justices

Questions for the Respondent - State of Florida (for the dog sniff)

Justices may take notes, ask their own questions, use the questions below or reword them. Questions must be relevant to the case and to the attorney’s position that is arguing.

1. If we rule that a K-9 sniff is not a search under the Fourth Amendment do you think then the police can use K-9s wherever they want? Perhaps just walking around in public with them and stopping anyone if the dog alerts?

2. Why shouldn’t the officers have to get a search warrant before they perform a K-9 sniff for drugs?

3. What if there was a fence around the house to keep out salesmen or unwanted visitors? Do the police still have the right to go there unannounced?

4. Are all Crime Stopper tips accurate? How should the police use these tips in order to stop crime?

5. Are the odors that may unintentionally escape from the inside of a home protected under the Fourth Amendment?

6. If the police and the K-9 had been asked by the owner to come into the home and the dog alerted to drugs, would you consider that a search since they were INSIDE the home?

Try to think of other questions for the attorneys who are for the dog sniff. MARSHAL’S SCRIPT (You must call Court to order in a very loud voice.)

All rise. (wait until everyone stands before continuing)

Hear ye! Hear ye! Hear ye!

The Supreme Court of Florida is now in session.

All who have cause to plea, draw near, give attention, and you shall be heard.

God save these United States, this great State of Florida, and this honorable Court.

Ladies and gentlemen, the Florida Supreme Court.

Please be seated. – The K-9 Search Case – CHIEF JUSTICE’S SCRIPT

1. The Court is ready to hear the case of John Jingle v. State of Florida.

2. Are the attorneys ready to proceed? (Wait for the attorneys to answer YES.)

3. Attorneys for the Petitioner may begin – 2 minutes each attorney. (You now become a regular justice asking questions. After both attorneys have their turn, move on to #4.) ______

4. Attorneys for the Respondent may begin – 2 minutes each attorney. (You now become a regular justice asking questions again. After both attorneys have their turn, move on to #.5) ______

5. Attorneys for the Petitioner may present rebuttal – 1 minute total. (You now become a regular justice asking questions again. After the petitioner’s attorney present their one minute rebuttal, move on to #6.) ______

6. Attorneys, thank you for your arguments. The Court will announce its decision shortly. CLERK SCRIPT

Directions: After the arguments, the Justices will vote on the case. Check the corresponding box for each justice’s vote, count the votes for the Petitioner and Respondent and complete the decision form below.

Votes: For the Petitioner: For the Respondent:

Chief Justice Justice 2 Justice 3 Justice 4 Justice 5 Justice 6 Justice 7

Decision Form:

(Directions – Stand up and READ in a very loud voice):

The Florida Supreme Court has reached a decision in this case. By a vote of ______to ______the Court rules in favor of the ______. Court Decisions

Florida Supreme Court Jardines v. State of Florida (2011)

In a similar case, the Florida Supreme Court ruled 5 - 2 that the sniff test conducted at the front door of the residence was an unreasonable government intrusion into the sanctity of the home and it violated the Fourth Amendment. The court ruled that a reasonable expectation of privacy, a value of this society that has developed over many decades, applies not only to the physical, tangible items within a home, but also to the air and odors that may be within and may unintentionally escape from within.

The dissent relied heavily on the issue that the dog was lawfully at the home and the sniff only revealed the presence of contraband and nothing else. There is no legitimate expectation or privacy in contraband that society is willing to recognize as reasonable.

Florida Supreme Court Case SC08-2101 http://www.floridasupremecourt.org/decisions/2011/sc08-2101.pdf

United States Supreme Court

This case has been appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court and docketed on 11/4/11. The USSC has accepted jurisdiction 1/6/12.

State of Florida v. Joelis Jardines. USSC11-564. http://www.supremecourt.gov/Search.aspx?FileName=/docketfiles/11-564.htm