Drug dogs need a warrant to sniff at your door, Supreme Court rules
| Washington
The US Supreme Court ruled Tuesday that police violated the Fourth Amendment rights of a homeowner when they led a drug-sniffing dog to the front door of a house suspected of being used to grow marijuana.
In a 5-to-4 decision, the high court said that police conducted a 鈥渟earch鈥� when they entered the property and took the dog to the house鈥檚 front porch.
Since the officers failed to first obtain a warrant from a judge before intruding onto private property, their search was unconstitutional, the court said.
鈥淎 police officer not armed with a warrant may approach a home and knock鈥� at the front door, Justice Antonin Scalia wrote in the 10-page majority opinion. 鈥淏ut introducing a trained police dog to explore the area around the home in hopes of discovering incriminating evidence is something else,鈥� he said. 鈥淭here is no customary invitation to do that.鈥�
The decision is important because it enforces what Justice Scalia calls the traditional property-based understanding of the Fourth Amendment.
Rather than analyzing whether the homeowner had a reasonable expectation of privacy, the property-based approach asks a more fundamental question: Did the underlying actions constitute a search.
鈥淭he basic rule is that a search occurs for Fourth Amendment purposes when the government physically intrudes for investigative purposes on one of the areas that the amendment protects: that is, onto persons, houses, papers, or effects,鈥� Scalia said in announcing the decision in open court.
鈥淥ur later cases have supplemented this test, but the basic approach keeps easy cases easy 鈥� and by those lights, this is an easy case indeed,鈥� he said.
At issue in Florida v. Jardines (11-564) was whether police acted properly when they led a dog trained to detect illicit drugs onto the front porch and up to the front door of Joelis Jardines鈥� house near Miami.
Investigators suspected Mr. Jardines was using his home to grow large quantities of marijuana. The drug-sniffing dog, 鈥淔ranky,鈥� signaled his handler that he smelled narcotics.
The dog鈥檚 鈥渁lert鈥� was combined with other evidence to demonstrate probable cause and obtain a search warrant from a judge. A raid and search revealed that the house was, in fact, being used to grow marijuana.
Jardines鈥� lawyer challenged the legality of the raid and search. He said police needed a warrant before bringing Franky onto Jardines鈥� property and up to the front door.
The trial judge agreed and invalidated the search. A state appeals court reversed that decision.
The issue went to the Florida Supreme Court, which agreed with the trial judge that using a dog to sniff odors emerging from the interior of a private home is a search within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment and requires that police first obtain a warrant before leading the dog onto the property.
In affirming Florida鈥檚 high court, the US Supreme Court said the police officers violated a basic rule of the Fourth Amendment by physically intruding into the area surrounding a private home for investigative purposes without securing a warrant.
鈥淲hen it comes to the Fourth Amendment, the home is first among equals,鈥� Scalia wrote. 鈥淎t the amendment鈥檚 very core stands the right of a man to retreat into his own home and there be free from unreasonable government intrusion.鈥�
Scalia added: 鈥淭his right would be of little practical value if the state鈥檚 agents could stand in a home鈥檚 porch or side garden and trawl for evidence with impunity.鈥�
In a dissent, Justice Samuel Alito said Scalia鈥檚 property-based rule 鈥渋s nowhere to be found in the annals of Anglo-American jurisprudence.鈥�
鈥淲hile the court claims that its reasoning has ancient and durable roots, its trespass rule is really a newly struck counterfeit,鈥� Justice Alito wrote.
Alito said that a reasonable person would understand that odors emerging from a private home may be detected in locations open to the public. He added that the home owner would enjoy no reasonable expectation of privacy in the escaping odors.
鈥淭he conduct of the police officer in this case did not constitute a trespass and did not violate respondent鈥檚 reasonable expectations of privacy,鈥� Alito said.
Joining the dissent were Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Anthony Kennedy and Stephen Breyer.
Joining Scalia in the majority were Justices Clarence Thomas, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan.
