ipl-logo

Florida V. Joelis Jardine Case Analysis

486 Words2 Pages
bulb-icon

Recommended: Essays about fourth amendment

The Supreme Court is the highest court in the United States court system. The rulings of the Supreme Court regards protecting constitutional rights, such as freedom of speech and administrative regulations governing airline safety (Tarr, 2014). The Florida v. Joelis Jardine case was presented to the Supreme Court of the United States in regards to the constitutional right of Jardine home to be searched. According to the SCOTUSblog, the holding was due to a dog sniffing at the door of a house of Jardine where police suspected drugs being grown which establishes right to search under the Fourth Amendment. For that reason, the Miami-Dade Police Department were granted a warrant to search the home of Jardine, but proceeded into his home. Subsequently, the Fourth Amendment states, “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against …show more content…

Based on the facts of the case and the process of the case reaching the Supreme Court. The blog written by Lyle Denniston stated that the Florida Supreme Court agreed that sending a dog onto the porch of someone private home, to sniff at the door, was considered a search and applied the Fourth Amendment. Even though, the Miami-Dade did not verify the trustworthy of the tip and did not receive a warrant to search the property in the initial stage of the case. Franky, a trained police working dog, detect marijuana. He was trained to sit down if there were drugs, marijuana, in this case in the area. As a result of his sniffing, Franky sat down warning the police officers that marijuana was in the home of Jardine. The police later located marijuana in the home. This lead to the case reaching the U.S. Supreme Court in the state of Florida’s appeal. The appeal was based on two issues, whether the use of Franky on the porch was a search and whether the officers others conduct in watching the house also was a search under the Fourth

Show More
Related
510 Words | 3 Pages

Significance: The Supreme Court here expresses that governmental conduct like drug dog sniffing that can reveal whether a substance is contraband, yet no other private fact, does not compromise any privacy interest, and therefore is not a search subject to the Fourth Amendment. Terry v. Ohio permits only brief investigative stops and extremely limited searches based on reasonable suspicion including seizures of property independent of the seizure of the

Read More
695 Words | 3 Pages

Although, the police officers had a search warrant they had it for the wrong unit which placed a family in danger and they raided the wrong unit in the first place but then raided the right one where they find the evidence but because it was found illegally the judge dismissed all of the evidence against Shakeel “Blam” Wiggins because of the Exclusionary Rule. Now the reason the evidence was dismissed was because there was no specific address on the warrant and this means that an officer cannot just search every unit in the multi-family house until they find evidence against the

Read More
525 Words | 3 Pages

Based on these observations they stopped Dickerson and patted him down. The search didn’t reveal any weapons, but the officer did notice a small lump in his jacket and to him it felt like a lump of crack cocaine in cellophane. In the evidence suppression hearing, the trial court likened finding the crack cocaine to the “plain view” doctrine which allows officers to seize evidence of contraband in plain sight during a search for other items. Therefore, the evidence was admissible. Throughout the appeals of the case, the Minnesota Court of Appeals and the Minnesota Supreme Court agreed that the initial contact and pat down were valid under Terry, but seizing the cocaine was unconstitutional.

Read More
428 Words | 2 Pages

The student’s voluntarily provided the officer with additional drugs and provided written consent, to a search of the room although they had the right to refuse the search and demand a search warrant. Reasoning/Analysis of the Court The Court held that the "plain view" exception to the Fourth Amendment warrant requirement permitted the officers to seize clearly incriminating evidence discovered "in a place where the officer has a right to be." The Court held that the officer had a right to be at the first students’ elbow at all times. The officer obtained lawful access to the student’s dorm room and was free to seize incriminating evidence.

Read More
558 Words | 3 Pages

The case of Florida versus Jardines was heard before the Supreme Court on October 31, 2012 and a decision was made on March 26, 2013. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Jardines. This case challenged the fundamental core of the Fourth Amendment, which protects against unreasonable search and seizure. The ruling of this case has impacted how law officials handle searches and the use of drug dogs. This case also challenged the boundary line of where personal property starts.

Read More
435 Words | 2 Pages

Since the police officer had a reasonable suspicion that the Respondent was holding drugs, the officer’s search and seizure of the cocaine was reasonable since the search remained within the bounds set forth by Terry v. Ohio. The United States Supreme Court ruled that a police officer’s sense of touch does not incur an invasion of Petitioner’s privacy during a stop and

Read More
829 Words | 4 Pages

United States v. Mark James Knights, 219 F. 3d 1138 Issue: The issue involved in this case is whether the respondents Fourth Amendment rights were infringed upon when law enforcement searched his home without a warrant. Even though respondent agreed to the terms of probation following release, which included searches of his person or premises with or without a warrant (The United States Department of Justice, 2014). Rule: The rule of law in regards to Knights probation conditions following release state that Knights would “submit his person, property, residence, vehicle, personal effects, to be searched at any time, with or without a search warrant, warrant of arrest or reasonable cause by any probation officer or law enforcement officer” (Karagiozis et al., 2005 p. 223).

Read More
1012 Words | 5 Pages

The motion of delay the trial date is based on the Fourth Amendment. Case 5-5 is alike. The action of the detective before getting the warrant impacts the defendant’s privacy, property and freedom. As a result, the defendant defended with the Fourth Amendment, which proves that warrantless searches of private premises are mostly prohibited unless there are justifiable exceptions. And a dog-sniff inspection in invalid under the Fourth Amendment if the inspection violates a reasonable expectation of privacy.

Read More
584 Words | 3 Pages

The police violated Wolf’s rights and since there was no warrant for arrest or warrant to search his office the police was trespassing. The police officer who violated his rights was to be punished by his superiors. The judges decided that using such evidence goes completely against the Fourth Amendment which is a basic need to our freedom. States should follow this law but are not directly forced to. States using evidence that should be excluded in their “statute becomes a form, and its protection an illusion,”(Wolf v Colorado, 1949).

Read More
416 Words | 2 Pages

Case Gone Wrong: Anthony vs State of Florida Case No. 5D11-2357 If ever there was a botched case it was this one with inconsistencies on the part of the State being overwhelming. I watched this trial intently and read everything available.

Read More
585 Words | 3 Pages

In the case Board of Education v. Earls, the issue involves drug testing for extracurricular activities. Previously, Vernonia school district created a policy to detect illegal drugs in students and that case with Acton of 1995; the court determined that the policy did not violate the Fourth Amendment “by dismissing the action in a 6-3 vote against the plaintiff” (Conlon). Lindsay Earls, a junior at Tecumseh High School in Tecumseh, Oklahoma, is involved in many extracurricular activities like show choir and the National Honors Society was tested for illegal drugs like all other students participating school sponsored activities. Earls claimed the policy was invading her privacy so she sued the Tecumseh school district for implementing a policy that she thought violated her rights with the Fourth Amendment (Earls v Board of Education ACLU). The Fourth Amendment to the United States prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures and requires any warrant to be judicially sanctioned and supported by

Read More
742 Words | 3 Pages

According to Justice Scalia, the device was ‘not in general public use.’ (Doc F), Along with that, the areas the government scanned were not all in public view, as the inside of DLK’s home was generally inaccessible to the public. There are only four times when a search can be performed without a warrant: hot pursuit, public safety, danger of loss to evidence, and permission of the suspect. While some may argue that DLK could have packed up the marijuana or destroyed it, the chances of that are very slim, and it most likely could not be done in the time it takes the government to get a

Read More
499 Words | 2 Pages

And if those considered free of criminal involvement may nevertheless be searched or inspected under civil statutes, it is difficult to understand why the Fourth Amendment would prevent entry onto their property to recover evidence of a crime not committed by them but by others. As we understand the structure and language of the Fourth Amendment and our cases expounding it, valid warrants to search property may be issued when it is satisfactorily demonstrated to the magistrate that fruits, instrumentalities, or evidence of crime is located on the premises. The Fourth Amendment has itself struck the balance between privacy and public need, and there is no occasion or justification for a court to revise the Amendment and strike a new balance by denying the search warrant in the circumstances present here and by insisting that the investigation proceed by subpoena duces tecum, whether on the theory that the latter is a less intrusive alternative or

Read More
941 Words | 4 Pages

The scan showed that Kyllo’s garage roof and a side wall were relatively hot compared to the rest of his home and substantially warmer than the neighboring units. Based in part on the thermal imaging, a judge issued a warrant to search Kyllo’s home, where the agents found marijuana growing. After Kyllo was indicted on a federal drug charge, he unsuccessfully moved to suppress the evidence seized from his home and then entered a conditional guilty plea. The Ninth Circuit ultimately affirmed, upholding the thermal imaging on the ground that Kyllo had shown no subjective expectation of privacy because he had made no attempt to conceal the

Read More
427 Words | 2 Pages

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures shall not be violated… We all know the fourth amendment. It's the amendment that guarantees our safety within our homes and our personal belongings. Yet, how much do you know about the fourth amendment? The fourth amendment is full of history, controversy, and discussion, even in modern day.

Read More

More about Florida V. Joelis Jardine Case Analysis

Related Topics

Open Document