A “Search” Within The Meaning Of The Fourth Amendment Includes Using A Drug-Sniffing Dog On A Homeowner’s Porch.

Police received a tip that marijuana was being grown in a home. A surveillance team went to the home and watched it for 15 minutes. Seeing no activity, a detective and a trained dog handler with his drug-sniffing dog approached the home. The dog had been trained to detect the scent of marijuana, cocaine, heroin and several other drugs. As the dog approached the front porch, he apparently sensed one of the odors he was trained to detect. Police left the home and on the basis of the dog’s alert, officers obtained a search warrant of the residence. When the warrant was executed, a suspect attempted to flee and was arrested. A search of the home revealed marijuana plants, and the man was charged with trafficking in cannabis. At his trial, the suspect, who was the homeowner, moved to suppress the marijuana plants on the ground that the canine investigation was an unreasonable search. The case eventually wound its way to the United States Supreme Court.  The Court held the search was unconstitutional, noting: “We need not decide whether the officers’ investigation of Jardines’ home violated his expectation of privacy under Katz [Katz v. United States (1967) 389 U.S. 347, [88 S.Ct. 507, 19 L.Ed.2d 576]]. One virtue of the Fourth Amendment’s property-rights baseline is that it keeps easy cases easy. That the officers learned only by physically intruding on Jardines’ property to gather evidence is enough to establish that a search occurred.” Florida v. Jardines (U.S. Sup. Ct.; March 26, 2013) (Case No. 11-564)133 S.Ct. 1409, [185 L.Ed.2d 495].