Kevin Russell writes:
Prior to hearing oral argument in the Proposition 8 case this morning, the Supreme Court handed down its decision in Florida v. Jardines, the other dog sniff case (Florida v. Harris was decided last month). In an opinion written by Justice Scalia, the Court affirmed the Florida Supreme Court. The Court held a dog sniff at the front door of a house where the police suspected drugs were being grown constitutes a search for purposes of the Fourth Amendment. Justice Kagan filed a concurrence joined by Justices Ginsburg and Sotomayor. Justice Alito filed a dissent joined by the Chief Justice, and Justices Kennedy and Breyer.
Read more on SCOTUSblog.
Orin Kerr commented on the decision:
This morning the Supreme Court handed down Florida v. Jardines, the case on use of a drug-sniffing dog at a suspect’s front porch to sniff around for narcotics inside. Held, in a 5-4 decision by Justice Scalia: Entry onto the porch was an unconstitutional search because it was a physical intrusion into the curtilage around the home under Jones that was beyond the scope of any implied consent. In light of my Supreme Court Review article on how there was no “trespass test” before Katz, I was particularly interested to see that the majority’s application of Jones does not use the word “trespass.” Instead, the Court refers to the Jones test as a test of “physical intrusion.”
Ryan Calo, however, had a somewhat different perspective, writing on Concurring Opinions that the decision leaves him somewhat puzzled/worried. He raises three thought-provoking questions.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.