Global Ganja Report

The US Supreme Court ruled March 26 in Florida v. Jardines that an alert from a drug-sniffing dog on a suspect's front porch constitutes a search within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment. The ruling upheld the Florida Supreme Court, which held that evidence gathered pursuant to search warrant obtained based on the positive alert from the dog must be suppressed because the dog's presence itself constituted a warrantless search. The case stemmed from a 2006 incident in which Miami police and DEA agents, acting on a tip, place the home of Joelis Jardines under warrantless surveillance. Following the canine alert, a warrant was obtained, which uncovered Jardines' indoor grow operaiton.

Writing for the majority, Justice Antonin Scalia characterized the case as straightforward:

The officers were gathering information in an area belonging to Jardines and immediately surrounding his house—in the curtilage of the house, which we have held enjoys protection as part of the home itself. And they gathered that information by physically entering and occupying the area to engage in conduct not explicitly or implicitly permitted by the homeowner.

Scalia also noted that while visitors knocking on the front door were typically permitted by residents, the presence of "that same visitor exploring the front path with a metal detector, or marching his bloodhound into the garden before saying hello and asking permission, would inspire most of us to—well, call the police." Writing in dissent, Justice Samuel Alito would have permitted the police activity, noting that it occurred completely within the path to the front door of the residence. The decision was split 5-4, with Justices Clarence Thomas, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan joining in the majority. Alito was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Anthony Kennedy and Stephen Breyer in dissent. (Jurist, PolicyMic, Miami Herald, March 27; Weed Blog, March 26)

Photo by Delta Mike