The Herald of Everett, Washington
HeraldNet on Facebook HeraldNet on Twitter HeraldNet RSS feeds HeraldNet Pinterest HeraldNet Google Plus HeraldNet Youtube
HeraldNet Newsletters  Newsletters: Sign up | Manage  Green editions icon Green editions

Calendar


HeraldNet Headlines
HeraldNet Newsletter Delivered to your inbox each week.
Published: Saturday, January 7, 2012, 12:01 a.m.

Supreme Court to rule on search by drug sniffing dog

MIAMI -- In a case closely watched by law enforcement nationwide, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed Friday to decide whether a Florida police dog's sniff outside the front door of a house with a marijuana growing operation is an illegal search.
Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi wants the justices to reverse a state Supreme Court decision that the K-9's sniff runs afoul of the Fourth Amendment protection against illegal search and seizure. Eighteen states and the territory of Guam have filed a brief in support of Bondi's position, concerned that other state courts might start issuing similar decisions.
"If the Florida Supreme Court's decision stands, it could have a profound chilling effect on law enforcement efforts to combat illegal drugs," the states' filing says. "The Florida Supreme Court's decision jeopardizes the states' ability to use this crucial tool to discover illegal drugs prior to their distribution."
The case arose from the December 2006 arrest of Joelis Jardines at a Miami-area house where 179 marijuana plants were confiscated. Miami-Dade Police Department officers obtained a search warrant after one of their dogs, a chocolate Lab named Franky, detected the odor of pot from outside the front door.
The trial judge threw out the evidence, agreeing with Jardines' attorney that the dog's sniff was an unconstitutional intrusion into the home. An appeals court reversed that ruling, but the state Supreme Court sided in April with the original judge.
The U.S. Supreme Court has previously ruled that a home is entitled to greater privacy than a car or a public place such as an airport when it comes to police use of K-9s to find illegal substances. But state of Florida lawyers and many legal experts say a dog's sniff isn't a violation because it only detects illegal activity not entitled to privacy.
"I think the state is very likely to win because the (U.S.) Supreme Court gives the police more flexibility," said Tom Goldstein, a constitutional law professor and publisher of a Supreme Court blog.
The justices will probably hear argument in April and issue a decision by late June.
The case is Florida v. Jardines, 11-564.
Story tags » Drug TraffickingSupreme Court

Related

Share your comments: Log in using your HeraldNet account or your Facebook, Twitter or Disqus profile. Comments that violate the rules are subject to removal. Please see our terms of use. Please note that you must verify your email address for your comments to appear.

You are logged in using your HeraldNet ID. Click here to update your profile. | Log out.

Our new comment system is not supported in IE 7. Please upgrade your browser here.

comments powered by Disqus
digital subscription promo

Subscribe now

Unlimited digital access starting at 99 cents, or included with any print subscription.

loading...

Photo galleries

» More HeraldNet galleries