UNIVERSITY OF THE DISTRICT OF - UDC Law Review

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Citation Structure Reasoning Writing This element is also weighed heavily. Knowledge of The Bluebook is an indispensible asset for law review associate editors. Spend extra time to ensure that you have properly formatted your citations. You will lose points for a poorly structured argument. Your analysis need not rigidly comply with “IRAC” or “CRAC” structure, but it should be easy to follow. We will not judge your opinions, but your arguments should be well-supported by the provided materials. Your ability to use proper grammar and sentence structure is important. Improper spelling or grammatical errors will reduce your score. Prompt The Supreme Court has granted certiorari in the case of Florida v. Jardines to consider the question of whether the use of a drug-detection dog at a private residence is a search requiring probable cause within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment. The Florida Supreme Court ruling in this case (Jardines v. State) is provided below. <strong>Review</strong> the provided packet of materials and formulate a legal argument either for or against the suppression of evidence obtained with the drug-detection dog. Use the provided materials to support your opinion. Your opinion may be no longer than five double-spaced pages formatted in accordance with the instructions above. The five-page limit includes footnotes. Provided sources Jardines v. State, 73 So.3d 34 (Fla. 2011) …………………………………… 9 Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967) ………………………………….. 34 Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213 (1983) ……………………………………….. 45 Jacobsen v. United States, 466 U.S. 109 (1984) ……………………………... 79 Kyllo v. United States, 533 U.S. 27 (2001) …………………………………… 94 Illinois v. Caballes, 543 U.S. 405 (2005) …………………………………….. 104 United States v. Brock, 417 F.3d 692 (7th Cir. 2005) ………………………... 112 United States v. Jones, 132 S.Ct. 945 (2011) ………………………………… 118 Leslie Lunney, Has the Fourth Amendment Gone to the Dogs Unreasonable Expansion of Canine Sniff Doctrine to Include Sniffs of the Home, 88 OR. L. REV. 829, 835 (2009) ………………… 131 1 WAYNE R. LAFAVE, SEARCH AND SEIZURE: A TREATISE ON <strong>THE</strong> FOURTH AMENDMENT § 2.3 (4th ed. 2004) …………………………... 181 8
Opinion PERRY, J. 73 So.3d 34 Supreme Court of Florida. Joelis JARDINES, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent. No. SC08–2101. | April 14, 2011. We have for review State v. Jardines, 9 So.3d 1 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008), in which the district court certified conflict with State v. Rabb, 920 So.2d 1175 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006). We have jurisdiction. See art. V, § 3(b)(4), Fla. Const. We quash the decision in Jardines and approve the result in Rabb. Police conducted a warrantless “sniff test” by a drug detection dog at Jardines’ home and discovered live marijuana plants inside. The trial court granted Jardines’ motion to suppress the evidence, and the State appealed. The district court reversed, and Jardines sought review in this Court. Jardines claims that the warrantless “sniff test” violated his right against unreasonable searches under the Fourth Amendment. The issue presented here is *36 twofold: (i) whether a “sniff test” by a drug detection dog conducted at the front door of a private residence is a “search” under the Fourth Amendment and, if so, (ii) whether the evidentiary showing of wrongdoing that the government must make prior to conducting such a search is probable cause or reasonable suspicion. The Fourth Amendment provides that “[t]he 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.” U.S. Const. amend. IV. The United States Supreme Court has held that “ ‘[a]t the very core’ of the Fourth Amendment ‘stands the right of a man to retreat into his own home and there be free from unreasonable governmental intrusion.’ ” Kyllo v. United States, 533 U.S. 27, 31, 121 S.Ct. 2038, 150 L.Ed.2d 94 (2001) (quoting Silverman v. United States, 365 U.S. 505, 511, 81 S.Ct. 679, 5 L.Ed.2d 734 (1961)). Or, more succinctly, “[w]ith few exceptions, the question whether a warrantless search of a home is reasonable and hence constitutional must be answered no.” Kyllo, 533 U.S. at 31, 121 S.Ct. 2038. 9 First, the dog “sniff test” that was conducted in the present case was an intrusive procedure. As explained more fully below, the “sniff test” was a sophisticated undertaking that was the end result of a sustained and coordinated effort by various law enforcement agencies. On the scene, the procedure involved multiple police vehicles, multiple law enforcement personnel, including narcotics detectives and other officers, and an experienced dog handler and trained drug detection dog engaged in a vigorous search effort on the front porch of the residence. Tactical law enforcement personnel from various government agencies, both state and federal, were on the scene for surveillance and backup purposes. The entire on-the-scene government activity—i.e., the preparation for the “sniff test,” the test itself, and the aftermath, which culminated in the full-blown search of Jardines’ home— lasted for hours. The “sniff test” apparently took place in plain view of the general public. There was no anonymity for the resident. Such a public spectacle unfolding in a residential neighborhood will invariably entail a degree of public opprobrium, humiliation and embarrassment for the resident, for such dramatic government activity in the eyes of many—neighbors, passers-by, and the public at large—will be viewed as an official accusation of crime. Further, if government agents can conduct a dog “sniff test” at a private residence without any prior evidentiary showing of wrongdoing, there is nothing to prevent the agents from applying the procedure in an arbitrary or discriminatory manner, or based on whim and fancy, at the home of any citizen. Such an open-ended policy invites overbearing and harassing conduct. Accordingly, we conclude that a “sniff test,” such as the test that was conducted in the present case, is a substantial government intrusion into the sanctity of the home and constitutes a “search” within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment. As such, it must be preceded by an evidentiary showing of wrongdoing. And second, we note that the parties in the present case have failed to point to a single case in which the United States Supreme Court has indicated that a search for evidence for use in a criminal prosecution, absent special needs beyond the normal need of law enforcement, may be based on anything other than probable cause. We assume that this is because, as explained more fully below, all that Court’s precedent in this area indicates just the opposite. And that precedent, we recognize, *37 applies with extra force where the sanctity of the home is concerned. Accordingly, we conclude that probable cause, not reasonable suspicion, is the proper evidentiary showing of wrongdoing that the government must make
Page 1 and 2: UNIVERSITY OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUM
Page 3 and 4: article that appeared in the period
Page 5 and 6: incarcerated children in the Distri
Page 7: Section 3: Writing Exercise Section
Page 11 and 12: activities, or statements that he e
Page 13 and 14: damaged package and notified federa
Page 15 and 16: B. “Sniff Test” at a Private Ho
Page 17 and 18: was standing in front of the door,
Page 19 and 20: justified on the basis of reasonabl
Page 21 and 22: The probable cause affidavit listed
Page 23 and 24: unwavering expectation that there w
Page 25 and 26: otherwise prompt his dog to alert.
Page 27 and 28: (quoting State v. Morsman, 394 So.2
Page 29 and 30: society recognizes as reasonable. A
Page 31 and 32: obtained through the search is not
Page 33 and 34: without implicating the Fourth Amen
Page 35 and 36: [14] The Government contends, howev
Page 37 and 38: the President and Attorney General
Page 39 and 40: nuisance. IV Blackstone, Commentari
Page 41 and 42: The other ‘eroding’ case cited
Page 43 and 44: 11 Jones v. United States, 362 U.S.
Page 45 and 46: 103 S.Ct. 2317 Supreme Court of the
Page 47 and 48: accompanying remedy. Here, for exam
Page 49 and 50: northbound on an interstate frequen
Page 51 and 52: inapplicable to the decision to iss
Page 53 and 54: L.Ed. 1879 (1949). Justice BRENNAN
Page 55 and 56: case. As the Court points out, “I
Page 57 and 58: forcefully suggest that the exclusi
Page 59 and 60:
S.Ct., at 3073-3074. (WHITE, J., di
Page 61 and 62:
law-enforcement officers have recog
Page 63 and 64:
government enforcement agent.” Id
Page 65 and 66:
advance an important underlying sub
Page 67 and 68:
Americans must be that the Court gi
Page 69 and 70:
3 In Spinelli, police officers obse
Page 71 and 72:
The only reference to Hereford’s
Page 73 and 74:
v. United States, supra; Sibron v.
Page 75 and 76:
susceptible to the interpretation t
Page 77 and 78:
8 Rugendorf v. United States, 376 U
Page 79 and 80:
104 S.Ct. 1652 Supreme Court of the
Page 81 and 82:
will not be betrayed.” United Sta
Page 83 and 84:
*126 In sum, the federal agents did
Page 85 and 86:
and that search has not left incrim
Page 87 and 88:
privacy in the presence or absence
Page 89 and 90:
surrounding the use of the techniqu
Page 91 and 92:
1437, 4 L.Ed.2d 1688 (1960); Henry
Page 93 and 94:
26 See, e.g., Michigan v. Long, 463
Page 95 and 96:
Rodriguez, 497 U.S. 177, 181, 110 S
Page 97 and 98:
how relatively warm—Kyllo was hea
Page 99 and 100:
concurring). To be sure, the homeow
Page 101 and 102:
homeowner would even care if anybod
Page 103 and 104:
4 This view comports with that of a
Page 105 and 106:
unless the dog sniff itself infring
Page 107 and 108:
probable cause to stop the car for
Page 109 and 110:
and, implicitly, the application of
Page 111 and 112:
3 Kyllo was concerned with whether
Page 113 and 114:
(500 grams and an unspecified amoun
Page 115 and 116:
authority to allow police inside th
Page 117 and 118:
AFFIRMED. We retain jurisdiction an
Page 119 and 120:
that “[t]he right of the people t
Page 121 and 122:
field” did not constitute a Fourt
Page 123 and 124:
Government’s unrestrained power t
Page 125 and 126:
y the government upon the privacy o
Page 127 and 128:
own difficulties. It involves a deg
Page 129 and 130:
search unless it is achieved by suc
Page 131 and 132:
88 Or. L. Rev. 829 Oregon Law Revie
Page 133 and 134:
hidden in open locations, such as f
Page 135 and 136:
While the Place Court’s failure t
Page 137 and 138:
location may be important in evalua
Page 139 and 140:
III Framing the Canine Home-Sniff D
Page 141 and 142:
seemingly making impermissible what
Page 143 and 144:
possessions. Without minimizing the
Page 145 and 146:
4. Even Surreptitious Canine Sniffs
Page 147 and 148:
the sniff--to the satisfaction of a
Page 149 and 150:
focused on the routineness of the a
Page 151 and 152:
6 See People v. Dunn, 564 N.E.2d 10
Page 153 and 154:
27 See Robert C. Bird, An Examinati
Page 155 and 156:
323 (Friedrich G. Barth et al. eds.
Page 157 and 158:
pre-Place decisions issued by the U
Page 159 and 160:
97 See Illinois v. Caballes, 543 U.
Page 161 and 162:
121 Id. at 37 n.4 (majority opinion
Page 163 and 164:
147 462 U.S. 696 (1983). 148 See in
Page 165 and 166:
171 Dunaway v. New York, 442 U.S. 2
Page 167 and 168:
199 As Justice Souter explained,
Page 169 and 170:
to school). 219 Cf. Katz & Golembie
Page 171 and 172:
240 See Kyllo v. United States, 533
Page 173 and 174:
263 In 2004, photographs emerged th
Page 175 and 176:
285 Id. at 1362. The story of this
Page 177 and 178:
306 But cf. Fitzgerald v. State, 86
Page 179 and 180:
328 Riley, 488 U.S. at 448 (observi
Page 181 and 182:
1 Search & Seizure § 2.3 (4th ed.)
Page 183 and 184:
establish a right to privacy therei
Page 185 and 186:
were locked and could only be opene
Page 187 and 188:
The Wright rule also should not be
Page 189 and 190:
to investigate. Noting that a metal
Page 191 and 192:
active domestic use. It housed ten
Page 193 and 194:
Ciraolo,191 involving aerial survei
Page 195 and 196:
ackyard of the building was complet
Page 197 and 198:
feet. The viewing from the helicopt
Page 199 and 200:
cases as Ciraolo, Riley and Dow man
Page 201 and 202:
premises were abandoned where all c
Page 203 and 204:
22 Young v. Harrison, 284 F.3d 863
Page 205 and 206:
37.1 McKenney v. Harrison, 635 F.3d
Page 207 and 208:
(1983); State v. Eddy, 519 A.2d 113
Page 209 and 210:
68 Dinkens v. State, 291 So.2d 122
Page 211 and 212:
eceived no answer to knock on front
Page 213 and 214:
870 (1987). In such a case, the fac
Page 215 and 216:
“Second, the agents had a legal r
Page 217 and 218:
131 United States v. Llanes, 398 F.
Page 219 and 220:
167 The reference is to the “open
Page 221 and 222:
however by fact lights were on insi
Page 223 and 224:
properly crossed defendant’s land
Page 225 and 226:
view”); State v. Merrill, 252 Neb
Page 227 and 228:
the area within the ‘curtilage’
Page 229 and 230:
is not to conclude that a search of
Page 231:
265 Such analysis was challenged by
show all

UNIVERSITY OF THE DISTRICT OF - UDC Law Review

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?