Jardines v. State (Supreme Court of Florida, April 14, 2011)

The Miami-Dade Police Department received an anonymous tip that a house was being used as a "grow-house" for marijuana.  Based upon this, the police performed surveillance on residence but found nothing unusual other than an AC unit running.  Nonetheless, a drug detection dog was summoned.  The dog was walked, on a leash, up to the front door.  The dog alerted the police to the presence of drugs.  A detective then went up to the front door and smelled marijuana.  From this information the officer prepared an affidavit which was presented to a Judge who then issued a search warrant for the home.  When police executed the search warrant they found marijuana plants being cultivated inside the home.

The Court said  that "the Fourth Amendment draws “a firm line at the entrance to the house.” That line must be not only firm but also bright—which requires clear specification of those methods of surveillance that require a warrant."  The fact that this was a residence/home created a huge distinction from other cases involving drug-detection dogs.  Typically there are three types of cases involving a drug detection dog: luggage (a dog “sniff test” does not implicate Fourth Amendment rights when employed in the following settings: (i) when conducted on luggage that has been seized at an airport based on reasonable suspicion of unlawful activity, where the luggage has been separated from its owner and the “sniff test” is conducted in a public place), a vehicle stopped at a checkpoint, and a vehicle stopped at a traffic stop.  Courts have allowed the use of drug dogs based upon the limited intrusiveness of the alert and essentially the lower protection given when out in public.

They concluded that using a drug dog on a residence was the equivalent to the use of thermal imaging cameras which the US Supreme Court has prohibited and discussed that holding to the facts presented.  Finally, they stated "given the special status accorded a citizen's home in Anglo–American jurisprudence, we hold that the warrantless “sniff test” that was conducted at the front door of the residence in the present case was an unreasonable government intrusion into the sanctity of the home and violated the Fourth Amendment."

Notes: Excellent discussion of drug dog detection law.  Also, an important case on the sanctity of the home and the limitations of police intrusion permitted.