ipl-logo

Petitioner Vs. Joelis Jardines Case Study

1901 Words8 Pages

The case Florida, Petitioner v. Joelis Jardines questions whether a dog sniff at the front door of a suspected grow house by a trained drug-detection dog is a Fourth Amendment search requiring probable cause (American Bar Association). The canine is being used as the use of surveillance in the investigation. The case begins with an unverified tip that marijuana was being grown in the home of Joelis Jardines on November 3, 2006 (American Bar Association). On December 5, 2006, around 7:00 a.m., the Department and the Drug Enforcement Administration sent a joint surveillance team to his home. Apart of the team is Detective Pedraja, whom watched the house for fifteen minutes. He noticed there were no vehicles in the driveway. There was also no …show more content…

In the foundational case of Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967), the Supreme Court broadened the scope of the Fourth Amendment by holding that it applies when there is a reasonable expectation of privacy. Looking further, does that mean that the government can contradict all Fourth Amendment protections by saying that employees should have no hope of privacy, according to the department’s policies? Determining the reasonableness of any search involves a twofold inquiry: first, one must consider 'whether the . . . action was justified at its inception'; second, one must determine whether the search as actually conducted 'was reasonably related in scope to the circumstances which justified the interference in the first place (Chemerinksy, E., 2010). The court decided this way because they majority felt that the searching of the home with the police dog is within the Fourth Amendment rights and was a reasonable search. It was concluded by a 5-4 margin. The majority included Scalia, Thomas, Ginsburg, Sotomayor, and Kagan. They did not focus on the right to privacy, which is associated with most Fourth Amendment cases this day and time. The final decision for them hinged on the foundation of a citizen's property rights. The concurrence included Kagan, Ginsburg, and Sotomayor. They lingered upon the binoculars example to argue even more that both privacy rights and property rights are equally connected. The dissent included Alito, Roberts, Kennedy, and Breyer. The majority's decision was based on a supposed rule of trespassing laws, that there is nowhere to be found in the records of Anglo-American jurisprudence. In United States v. Carloss case, a divided US Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit ruled that police didn't violate the Fourth Amendment when they walked past several "no trespassing" signs, knocked on the door of a home and asked to speak to

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
276 Words | 2 Pages

The case of California v. Greenwood involves police who were investigating a potential drug trafficker, Greenwood. The police, who were acting on information that suggested that Greenwood could possibly be engaged in narcotics trafficking, obtained trash that Greenwood had left on the curb in front of his home. Considering the trash included items indicative of narcotics use, the police then obtained warrants to search Greenwood’s home, discovered controlled substances during their searches, and subsequently arrested respondents on felony narcotics charges. The issue in this case was whether the Fourth Amendment prohibits the warrantless search and seizure of trash left for collection outside the curtilage of a home.

Read More
770 Words | 4 Pages

On March 27, 2012 police officer Morgan Stubble watched Dennys Rodrigues commit a traffic violation. The officer pulled over Rodrigues and proceed to issue a traffic warning. The officer then asked Rodrigues if he can walk his dog around the vehicle. The dog alerted the officer of contraband

Read More
475 Words | 2 Pages

The Weeks v United States case was the Supreme Court basis in determining to incorporate the Fourth Amendment into the Fourteenth Amendment due process clause and apply the exclusionary rule in state cases. In this essay, I am going to discuss the reason why the Supreme Court determine that the exclusionary rule should apply to the state police activity. Prior to the case of Weeks v United States, the state police activity “were not limited in their conduct by the Fourth Amendment” (Ingram p.81) and the exclusionary rule of Fourth Amendments illegal search and seizure only applies to federal law enforcement officers. Basically, it means that state law enforcement officials can illegally search and seized criminal activity evidence and court don’t prohibit the use of illegally obtained evidence in the trial court.

Read More
1299 Words | 6 Pages

Supreme Court heard Riley’s case, the main issue being questioned was whether or not Riley’s Fourth Amendment Rights had been violated. The Fourth Amendment grants individuals the right, “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 probably cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized” Thus, the Fourth Amendment would have protected Riley from an unreasonable search and seizure of his property without a warrant. The court claimed that Riley v. California brought up a concern of the reasonableness of a warrantless search incident to a lawful arrest. The Supreme Court referred to Weeks v. United States for the set precedent on the issue.

Read More
1113 Words | 5 Pages

Blake as a guest at Mr. Smith’s home expected to continue to have his Fourth Amendment rights once entering the residence. Mr. Blake had a large connection to Mr. Smith being he is the co-owner of their business and is a friend of the families. The police officers watching through the window is a violation of the Fourth Amendment rights where a search occurs when a governmental employee or agent of the government violates an individual's reasonable expectation of privacy. (https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/fourth_amendment) In this case the police officers observed illegally the inside of Mr. Smith’s home.

Read More
752 Words | 4 Pages

Noah Pardi Mrs. Hansen Block 6 3/1/23 DLK vs. United States: Did the Government go too far? “Relying on the government to protect your privacy is like asking a peeping tom to install your window blinds,” said John Perry Barlow. To start, The Fourth Amendment is the amendment which protects the people and their property from unreasonable searches and seizures by the government. In the DLK vs United States case, DLK was growing marijuana plants in his house. The police suspected him of growing the marijuana plants.

Read More
493 Words | 2 Pages

Current Courts Opinion In a 5-4 opinion the Supreme Court decides that the Governments use of a thermal imagining device that is not available to the public to gather information of a home that would be unknown without using the device is a violation of the Fourth Amendment search and is deemed unreasonable. The majority opinion argued that a person has the right to privacy in their own home. This argument is then rejected. Judge Scalia argued that there is a fine line when it comes to the Fourth Amendment and because they did not “enter” the home, it was not an invasion 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
742 Words | 3 Pages

According to the Fourth Amendment, people have the right to be secure in their private property, and may only be searched with probable cause. However, in a recent case, this right was violated by the government. An Oregon citizen, with the initials of DLK, was suspected of growing marijuana in his home. The federal government used a thermal imager to scan his home, and were later given a warrant to physically search his home. However, many remain divided over whether or not this scan was constitutional, as there was no warrant at the time of the scan.

Read More
1073 Words | 5 Pages

Before the 20th century, there were few, if any, cases based on the Fourth Amendment. However, as surveillance by law enforcers became more common, these tactics, and others, were scrutinized in court cases throughout the 20th and 21st century. Within the past 50 years there have been more and more cases held to determine whether or not a citizen’s right were being violated or if authorities were within the law. Like a story with multiple timelines, the outcome of a case disputing the fourth amendment is not always clear or predictable. PII Like many of the other amendments, already established traditions of British law supported the concept of the IV Amendment.

Read More
210 Words | 1 Pages

The fourth amendment can be beneficial but, it can also to some U.S. citizens be invasion of privacy. The fourth amendment states “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated,” some U.S. citizens believe that Law Enforcement, the Government and the NSA are violating the required guidelines of the Fourth Amendment. The NSA is conducted a mass U.S. surveillance not to believe specific individuals may be engaging in terrorist activity, but instead to believe all of us may be engaging in such activity. The government mass surveillance proves that U.S. citizens are considered suspects at all times. With the Patriot Act the NSA has access to

Read More
427 Words | 2 Pages

The Verdict discussed how both cases were attempting to suppress evidence from their cell phones which now contain much more information than they once did. Cases like this continue to shape our rights. The fourth amendment is here to protect ourselves from being incriminated. In modern day the fourth amendment is in question due to new technology.

Read More
1058 Words | 5 Pages

Would you like your home to be searched in the middle of the night and have all of your stuff thrown on the ground just because a police officer may think that you have been doing something illegal? Luckily your Fourth amendment right protects you from this ever happening. The purpose of the Fourth Amendment is to protect U.S. citizens from unreasonable searches and seizures by the government. During the revolutionary war the British had imposed the writs of assistance which was a law that gave British government much more power over American Individuals. Americans were very unhappy with the writs of assistance because many would be thrown in jail without reason or a very weak one and their property would be destroyed by British officials

Read More
752 Words | 4 Pages

The biggest benefit of the Fourth Amendment is that it deters searches. A search under the Fourth Amendment is “when a governmental employee or an agent of the government violates an individual 's reasonable expectation of privacy” (Legal Information). If the government were to invade a citizen’s property no law enforcement shall search the human, but upon probable cause. The court will be the one to tell if the search falls under the Fourth Amendment, if it were to fall under the Fourth Amendment the citizen would not be searched. In addition, when the law enforcement believes searching a citizen is reasonable, no excessive force shall be used.

Read More

More about Petitioner Vs. Joelis Jardines Case Study

Related Topics

Open Document