U.S. Supreme Court Rules That Search By Drug Sniffing Dog Violates The 4th Amendment

In Florida v. Jardines, the United States Supreme Court recently held that an investigation of a defendant’s home by a drug-sniffing dog does not constitute a permissible search under the 4th Amendment.  In that case, the police had received an unverified tip that marijuana was being grown at the defendant’s home.  The police approached the home to investigate with a drug-sniffing dog, but without a warrant.  The police did not enter the home itself. However, they allowed the dog to go to the front door. This is where it detected drugs, permitting the police to obtain a warrant.

Writing for the majority, Justice Scalia determined that the police had performed an unconstitutional search and likened the use of the drug-sniffing dog to using binoculars to peer into a home.  Justice Kagan agreed, writing in the Court’s Opinion that “A drug detection dog is a specialized device” and the “device here was aimed at a home — the most private and inviolate (or so we expect) of all the places and things the Fourth Amendment protects.”  The Court concluded that the police had trespassed on the defendant’s property and had invaded the defendant’s privacy.

This case represents a victory for the accused in the war on drugs. It may be a sign. The US Supreme Court might now be willing to increase the rights of the accused that had previously been diminished.

Bloch & Chapleau represents clients in all criminal matters. This includes DUI’s, domestic violence and assault, sexual assault, drug charges, and all other felonies and misdemeanors.