569 U.S., 133 S. Ct. 1409, 185 L. Ed. The Court held that the front porch of a home is part of the home itself for Fourth Amendment purposes. Justice Alito filed a dissenting opinion in which Chief Justice Roberts, Justice Kennedy, and Justice Breyer joined. The dissent section is for members only and includes a summary of the dissenting judge or justice’s opinion. Kevin Russell, Opinion Issued in Florida v. Jardines, SCOTUSblog (Mar. Jul 2 2012 Motion of the Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae and for divided argument filed. On March 26, the Supreme Court issued its decision in Florida v. Jardines, a case involving police use of a drug-sniffing dog on the front porch of a home to detect marijuana growing inside. On March 26 th the Court released its decision in Florida v. Jardines. See Jardines v.Florida, 73 So. The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader. Typically, ordinary citizens are invited to enter onto the porch, either explicitly or implicitly, to communicate with the house's occupants. The Florida Supreme Court held that the Fourth Amendment draws a “firm line at the entrance of the house” and that the “sniff test” undertaken by the police and K9 partner was a search requiring probable cause and a warrant.Id. In an opinion written by Justice Scalia, the Court affirmed the Florida Supreme Court. Syllabus. Ryan Calo, Some Thoughts on Florida v. Jardines, Concurring Opinions (Mar. 26, 2013). 3d 34 (Fla. 2011). Florida v. Jardines, 569 U.S. 1 (2013), was a United States Supreme Court case which resulted in the decision that police use of a trained detection dog to sniff for narcotics on the front porch of a private home is a search within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitutio. Brief of respondent Joelis Jardines filed. Dissenting Opinion (Alito): ... Florida v. Jardines is significant because it essentially equates a drug-sniffing dog with other super-sensitive pieces of equipment that have also resulted in Fourth Amendment violations when used by the police without probable cause. The conservatives were split, with Justices Scalia and Thomas joining the majority and Justices Alito and Roberts dissenting. Justice Antonin Scalia delivered a 5-4 opinion affirming the Florida Supreme Court's decision. A summary and case brief of Florida v. Jardines, 569 U.S. 1 (2013), including the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, key terms, and concurrences and dissents. See United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 U. S. 321, 337. Justice Kagan filed a concurring opinion in which Justice Ginsburg and Justice Sotomayor joined. Although the Court was divided in its ruling (5-4), it was not divided along traditional liberal-conservative lines. The conservatives were split, with Justices Scalia and Thomas joining the majority and Justices Alito and Roberts dissenting. Orin Kerr, What Is the State of the Jones Trespass Test After Florida v. One month later the department of DEA sent surveillance team to Jardines home. Florida v. Jardines. SCOTUSblog Coverage. Prior to hearing oral argument in the Proposition 8 case this morning, the Supreme Court handed down its decision in Florida v.Jardines, the other dog sniff case (Florida v. Harris was decided last month). ____ U.S. ___ (2013) Vote: 6 (Kavanagh) 3 (Kavanagh) OPINION OF THE COURT: Kavanagh DISSENTING OPINION: Kavanagh FACTS: On November 3, 2006, Detective Pedraja of the Miami-Dade Police department received an unverified tip that Joelis Jardines was growing marijuana in his home. 26, 2013). The following month, on December 6, 2006, Detective Pedraja and Detective Bartlet… [2]. certiorari to the supreme court of florida 26, 2013). Although the Court was divided in its ruling (5-4), it was not divided along traditional liberal-conservative lines. FLORIDA v. JARDINES. Jardines?, Volokh Conspiracy (Mar. SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES. Florida v. Jardines, 569 U.S. 1 (2013), is a decision by the United States Supreme Court which held that police use of a trained detection dog to sniff for narcotics on the front porch of a private home is a "search" within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution, and therefore, without consent, requires both probable cause and a search warrant.