Intro to Law and Society: Final Exam Study GuideCases covered:Florida v. JardinesHarris v. FloridaLoureiro v. StateSeibert v. StateRiethmiller v. StateTerry v. OhioBrown v. TexasFlorida v. JardinesQuestion presented: Whether a dog sniff at the front door of a suspected grow house by a trained narcoticsdetection dog is a Fourth Amendment search requiring probable cause?- Status: Jardines was found not guilty - Facts:o On November 3, 2006 an anonymous, unverified tip was given to the Miami-Dade Police Department through its “crime stoppers” tip line indicating that the residence of Jardines was being used as a marijuana grow house.o About a month later, two detectives and a drug-detection dog approached the residence, while other officers of the police department established perimeter postions around the residence with agents of the Drug Enforcement Administration in stand-by positions as backup units.o As summarized by the written opinion of the Florida Third District Court of Appeal… The detective went to the home at 7 am. He watched the home for 15 minutes, there were no vehicles in the driveway, the blinds were closed, and there was no observable activity. After 15 minutes, the dog handler arrived with the drug-detection dog. The handler placed the dog on a leash and accompanied the dog up to the front door of the home. The dog alerted the scent of contraband. The handler told the detective that the dog had a positive alert for the odor of narcotics. The detective went up to the front door for the first time, and smelled marijuana. The detective prepared an affidavit and applied for a search warrant which was then issued. A search was conducted which confirmed that marijuana was being grown inside the home. The defendant was arrested.o While the narcotics detective was away from the scene in order to secure the warrant, Federal DEA agents remained behind to maintain surveillance of Jardines’ home.o The search warrant was secured about an hour later, and was executed by officers from both agencies. o The defendant was apprehended by a DEA agent as he attempted to flee through the rear door of the residence. - Ruling:o Evidence suppressed at trial, reversed.o Court ruled that this was an illegal search.- Rationale:o The court ruled that this was an illegal search because a police officer not armed with a warrant may approach a home in hopes of speaking to its occupants because it is no more than any private citizen would do but the scope of a license is limited to not only to a particular area but also to a specific purpose and there is no customary invitation to enter the area outside your home (open to the public) simply to conduct a search.- Precedent:o 4th Amendment o Kyllo v. United StatesFurther Notes Issue: Whether police violated the Fourth Amendment by taking a dog that had been trained to alert officers of the presence of illegal substances to a house where the officers suspected, without probable cause, that marijuana was being grown. An officer can knock on your door and that is not an unwarranted search,  The argument before the court was that if you can knock on the door and it is legal, then why couldn’t it happen that you “happened” to have a dog with you. o One of the things that the court decided was that the detection of anything that is not in plain view or smell with a specialized instrument constitutes a search.o Drug sniffing dog = specialized instrument.  Police set up outside of home without a warrant.  Fourth amendment scholars supported Jardines by arguing that scientific evidence demonstrates that drug detection dogs alert to non-contraband substances not the illegal drug itself which leads to false alerts. Florida v. HarrisQuestion presented: Whether the Florida Supreme Court has decided an important federal question in a way thatconflicts with the established Fourth Amendment precedent of this Court by holding that an alert by a well-trainednarcotics detection dog certified to detect illegal contraband is insufficient to establish probable cause for thesearch of a vehicle?- Status:o Harris’ search was constituted as lawful. - Facts:o On June 24, 2006 a Florida Sheriff Canine Officer Wheetley and his drug-detection dog, Aldo were on patrol.o The officer conducted a traffic stop of defendant Clayton Harris’s truck because his tag had expired.o Approaching the truck, the officer noticed that the defendant was shaking, breathing fast, and appeared agitated-he also noticed an open beer container in the vehicle’s cup holder. o When the defendant refused consent to search the truck, the officer deployed Aldo to walk around the truck.o As he performed a “free air sniff” of the truck’s exterior, the dog alerted his handler to the driver’sside door handle.o The officer then searched the vehicle and found over 200 pseudoephedrine pills in a plastic bag under the driver’s seat. o On the passenger’s side, the officer found boxes containing a total of 8000 matches.o Harris was then placed under arrest, and a further search uncovered muriatic acid, antifreeze/waterremover, a Styrofoam plate inside a latex glove, and a coffee filter with iodine crystals.o The officer testified that these chemicals are precursors of methamphetamine.o After being read his Miranda rights, Harris stated that he had been “cooking meth” for about one year, and had most recently cooked it at his home two weeks prior.o As no methamphetamine was found in the vehicle, the State charged Harris with possession of the listed chemical pseudoephedrine with intent to use it to manufacture methamphetamine. o About two months after the stop, Harris was again stopped by the same officer for another traffic infraction.o During the stop, the officer again deployed Aldo who once again alerted the officer of the driver’s side door handle. o The officer again searched the vehicle and found no illegal substances, except for an open bottle ofalcoholic beverage. - Ruling:o Motion to suppress evidence denied at trial, affirmed. o Ruling overturned - Rationale:o If a dog has been certified after testing his reliability in a controlled setting, or if the dog has recently and successfully completed a training program that evaluated his proficiency, a court can presume (subject to any conflicting evidence offered) that the dog's alert provides probable cause to search, using a "totality-of-the-circumstances" approach.- Precedent:o