Contrary to the interpretation propounded by the concurrence, Kyllo is best understood as a decision about the use of new technology. I can think of only one divergence: If we had decided this case on privacy grounds, we would have realized that Kyllo v. United States, Has your “visitor” trespassed on your property, exceeding the license you have granted to members of the public to, say, drop off the mail or distribute campaign flyers? 278 (1983)
460 U. S. 276,
The dissent would let the police do whatever they want by way of gathering evidence so long as they stay on the base-path, to use a baseball analogy—so long as they “stick to the path that is typically used to approach a front door, such as a paved walkway.” Ibid. ] K. B., at 291, 95 Eng. At oral argument, the State and its amicus the Solicitor General argued that Jardines conceded in the lower courts that the officers had a right to be where they were. Some individuals employed in the perfume and wine industries, for example, have an amazingly acute sense of smell. Ante, at 3–4 (opinion of Kagan, J.). K. B. Respondent Jardines argues that the method is not reliable and that the method may lead to indiscriminate and discriminatory searches of homes.
and I have no idea who might be standing in one of the spots in question when the odors from my house reach that location. Oliver v. United States, Of course, that is not what they did. For these reasons, I would hold that no search within the meaning of the And they gathered that information by physically entering and occupying the area to engage in conduct not explicitly or implicitly permitted by the homeowner. You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 97,000 law students since 2011. Detective Bartelt had the dog on a six-foot leash, owing in part to the dog’s “wild” nature, App. On December 6, 2006, two detectives, along with a trained drug detection dog, approached the residence. Thus, Florida argues, Supreme Court precedent establishes that dog sniffs do not constitute a Fourth Amendment search requiring probable cause because they are unique in that they can only establish the presence or absence of contraband and do not violate a legitimate privacy interest. moved to suppress the gun on the grounds that it was found during an unlawful search. We therefore regard the area “immediately surrounding and associated with the home”—what our cases call the curtilage—as “part of the home itself for He adhered to the customary path; he did not approach in the middle of the night; and he remained at the front door for only a very short period (less than a minute or two). They argue that these searches will lead to indiscriminate and discriminatory searches as officers are permitted to use dogs in a search whenever and wherever they desire.
4–5.
. 482 (1985)
A reasonable person understands that odors emanating from a house may be detected from locations that are open to the public, and a reasonable person will not count on the strength of those odors remaining within the range that, while detectible by a dog, cannot be smelled by a human. 476 U. S. 207,
In this case, Jardines believes, the narcotics dog was behaving in a manner consistent with devices in Kyllo and in Karo by revealing details inside the home that could not otherwise be known without the police physically entering the premises. But their answers are incompatible with the dissent’s outcome, which is presumably why the dissent does not even try to argue that it would be customary, usual, reasonable, respectful, ordinary, typical, nonalarming, etc., for a stranger to explore the curtilage of the home with trained drug dogs. 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. California v. Ciraolo, An invitation to engage in canine forensic investigation assuredly does not inhere in the very act of hanging a knocker. I would hold that this conduct was not a search, and I therefore respectfully dissent. These are good questions. Yes, he has. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students. The judgment of the Supreme Court of Florida is therefore affirmed. This right would be of little practical value if the State’s agents could stand in a home’s porch or side garden and trawl for evidence with impunity; the right to retreat would be significantly diminished if the police could enter a man’s property to observe his repose from just outside the front window. Although there is no empirical data on canine marijuana detection and whether other substances exist that could produce a false alert, the Fourth Amendment scholars argue that there are legitimate reports that suggest that many drug detection dogs falsely alert to the presence of marijuana.
365 U. S. 505, In those cases, the police used search tools to gather inferences about what was inside the home through what was emanated from the home; the police in this case used the dog in a similar fashion.
The government’s use of trained police dogs to inves- tigate the home and its immediate surroundings is a “search” within the meaning of the 511 (1961)
The National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers and the Florida Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers ("the associations") argue that allowing the use of drug detection dogs without requiring probable cause is likely to lead to serious encroachments on Fourth Amendment protections. On November 3, 2006, the Drug Enforcement Agency ("DEA") received an anonymous tip that home of Respondent, Joelis Jardines, was being used as a marijuana grow house.
]
, which held that police officers conducted a search when they used a thermal imaging device to detect heat emanating from a house.
A stranger comes to the front door of your home carrying super-high-powered binoculars.
Supreme Court to Decide if Drug Dog’s Nose Went Too Far. [ A pedestrian or motorist looking for a particular address may walk up to a front door in order to check a house number that is hard to see from the sidewalk or road. In Kyllo, the Supreme Court held that the use of a thermal imaging device by police to detect heat inside a home violated the Fourth Amendment because such a search violates an individual’s subjective expectation of privacy by revealing details inside the home, even if there is no physical intrusion into the property by police officers. Jones, supra, at ___ (slip op., at 8). ).
Nor, as a general matter, may a visitor come to the front door in the middle of the night without an express invitation. The Supreme Court of Florida approved the trial court’s decision to suppress the evidence, holding that the officers had engaged in a Fourth Amendment protection of the home has never been extended to require law enforcement officers to shield their eyes when passing by a home on public thoroughfares”); Cada, supra, at 232, 923 P. 2d, at 477 (“[P]olice officers restricting their activity to [areas to which the public is impliedly invited] are permitted the same intrusion and the same level of observation as would be expected from a reasonably respectful citizen” (internal quotation marks omitted)); 1 LaFave §§2.2(a), 2.3(c), at 450–452, 572–577. , already resolved it. 1765), a case “undoubtedly familiar” to “every American statesman” at the time of the Founding, Boyd v. United States, The at 2–3, 7–8). See Florida v. Harris, 568 U. S. ___ (2013) (slip op.
In response, Florida argues that the use of drug detection dogs, a century-old law enforcement technique, does not and would not lead to indiscriminate and discriminatory searches. 2
Officers need not "shield their eyes" when passing a home on public thoroughfares but "no man can set his foot upon his neighbour's close without his leave." ]
See id., at 413, and n. 3. 476 U. S. 207 practice questions in 1L, 2L, & 3L subjects, as well as 16,500+ case Opinion (Scalia), Concurrence (Kagan), Dissent (Alito). A group of Fourth Amendment scholars further support 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. Justice Scalia delivered the opinion of the Court.
The State points to our decisions holding that the subjective intent of the officer is irrelevant.
But no one is impliedly invited to enter the protected premises of the home in order to do nothing but conduct a search. See ante, at 7, n. 3. But those cases merely hold that a stop or search that is objectively reasonable is not vitiated by the fact that the officer’s real reason for making the stop or search has nothing to do with the validating reason. . Thus, argues Jardines, a Fourth Amendment search occurs even where the police officers are lawfully outside the home but use search devices to obtain information or draw inferences about what is going on inside the home from what is emanating from the home. Fourth Amendment provides in relevant part that the “right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated.” The Amendment establishes a simple baseline, one that for much of our history formed the exclusive basis for its protections: When “the Government obtains information by physically intruding” on persons, houses, papers, or effects, “a ‘search’ within the original meaning of the L., C. & P. S. 385 (1955–1956) (hereinafter Sloane). (“After the officers came closer and detected the distinct odor of marihuana, they had probable cause to believe that the vehicles contained contraband”); United States v. Ventresca, And so the sentiment “my home is my own,” while originating in property law, now also denotes a common understanding—extending even beyond that law’s formal protections—about an especially private sphere. “I know that odors may emanate from my building and that atmospheric conditions, such as the force and direction of the wind, may affect the strength of those odors when they reach a spot where members of the public may lawfully stand. National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, Florida Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, To Sniff or Not to Sniff? J.L.
460 U. S. 276,
The dissent would let the police do whatever they want by way of gathering evidence so long as they stay on the base-path, to use a baseball analogy—so long as they “stick to the path that is typically used to approach a front door, such as a paved walkway.” Ibid. ] K. B., at 291, 95 Eng. At oral argument, the State and its amicus the Solicitor General argued that Jardines conceded in the lower courts that the officers had a right to be where they were. Some individuals employed in the perfume and wine industries, for example, have an amazingly acute sense of smell. Ante, at 3–4 (opinion of Kagan, J.). K. B. Respondent Jardines argues that the method is not reliable and that the method may lead to indiscriminate and discriminatory searches of homes.
and I have no idea who might be standing in one of the spots in question when the odors from my house reach that location. Oliver v. United States, Of course, that is not what they did. For these reasons, I would hold that no search within the meaning of the And they gathered that information by physically entering and occupying the area to engage in conduct not explicitly or implicitly permitted by the homeowner. You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 97,000 law students since 2011. Detective Bartelt had the dog on a six-foot leash, owing in part to the dog’s “wild” nature, App. On December 6, 2006, two detectives, along with a trained drug detection dog, approached the residence. Thus, Florida argues, Supreme Court precedent establishes that dog sniffs do not constitute a Fourth Amendment search requiring probable cause because they are unique in that they can only establish the presence or absence of contraband and do not violate a legitimate privacy interest. moved to suppress the gun on the grounds that it was found during an unlawful search. We therefore regard the area “immediately surrounding and associated with the home”—what our cases call the curtilage—as “part of the home itself for He adhered to the customary path; he did not approach in the middle of the night; and he remained at the front door for only a very short period (less than a minute or two). They argue that these searches will lead to indiscriminate and discriminatory searches as officers are permitted to use dogs in a search whenever and wherever they desire.
4–5.
. 482 (1985)
A reasonable person understands that odors emanating from a house may be detected from locations that are open to the public, and a reasonable person will not count on the strength of those odors remaining within the range that, while detectible by a dog, cannot be smelled by a human. 476 U. S. 207,
In this case, Jardines believes, the narcotics dog was behaving in a manner consistent with devices in Kyllo and in Karo by revealing details inside the home that could not otherwise be known without the police physically entering the premises. But their answers are incompatible with the dissent’s outcome, which is presumably why the dissent does not even try to argue that it would be customary, usual, reasonable, respectful, ordinary, typical, nonalarming, etc., for a stranger to explore the curtilage of the home with trained drug dogs. 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. California v. Ciraolo, An invitation to engage in canine forensic investigation assuredly does not inhere in the very act of hanging a knocker. I would hold that this conduct was not a search, and I therefore respectfully dissent. These are good questions. Yes, he has. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students. The judgment of the Supreme Court of Florida is therefore affirmed. This right would be of little practical value if the State’s agents could stand in a home’s porch or side garden and trawl for evidence with impunity; the right to retreat would be significantly diminished if the police could enter a man’s property to observe his repose from just outside the front window. Although there is no empirical data on canine marijuana detection and whether other substances exist that could produce a false alert, the Fourth Amendment scholars argue that there are legitimate reports that suggest that many drug detection dogs falsely alert to the presence of marijuana.
365 U. S. 505, In those cases, the police used search tools to gather inferences about what was inside the home through what was emanated from the home; the police in this case used the dog in a similar fashion.
The government’s use of trained police dogs to inves- tigate the home and its immediate surroundings is a “search” within the meaning of the 511 (1961)
The National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers and the Florida Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers ("the associations") argue that allowing the use of drug detection dogs without requiring probable cause is likely to lead to serious encroachments on Fourth Amendment protections. On November 3, 2006, the Drug Enforcement Agency ("DEA") received an anonymous tip that home of Respondent, Joelis Jardines, was being used as a marijuana grow house.
]
, which held that police officers conducted a search when they used a thermal imaging device to detect heat emanating from a house.
A stranger comes to the front door of your home carrying super-high-powered binoculars.
Supreme Court to Decide if Drug Dog’s Nose Went Too Far. [ A pedestrian or motorist looking for a particular address may walk up to a front door in order to check a house number that is hard to see from the sidewalk or road. In Kyllo, the Supreme Court held that the use of a thermal imaging device by police to detect heat inside a home violated the Fourth Amendment because such a search violates an individual’s subjective expectation of privacy by revealing details inside the home, even if there is no physical intrusion into the property by police officers. Jones, supra, at ___ (slip op., at 8). ).
Nor, as a general matter, may a visitor come to the front door in the middle of the night without an express invitation. The Supreme Court of Florida approved the trial court’s decision to suppress the evidence, holding that the officers had engaged in a Fourth Amendment protection of the home has never been extended to require law enforcement officers to shield their eyes when passing by a home on public thoroughfares”); Cada, supra, at 232, 923 P. 2d, at 477 (“[P]olice officers restricting their activity to [areas to which the public is impliedly invited] are permitted the same intrusion and the same level of observation as would be expected from a reasonably respectful citizen” (internal quotation marks omitted)); 1 LaFave §§2.2(a), 2.3(c), at 450–452, 572–577. , already resolved it. 1765), a case “undoubtedly familiar” to “every American statesman” at the time of the Founding, Boyd v. United States, The at 2–3, 7–8). See Florida v. Harris, 568 U. S. ___ (2013) (slip op.
In response, Florida argues that the use of drug detection dogs, a century-old law enforcement technique, does not and would not lead to indiscriminate and discriminatory searches. 2
Officers need not "shield their eyes" when passing a home on public thoroughfares but "no man can set his foot upon his neighbour's close without his leave." ]
See id., at 413, and n. 3. 476 U. S. 207 practice questions in 1L, 2L, & 3L subjects, as well as 16,500+ case Opinion (Scalia), Concurrence (Kagan), Dissent (Alito). A group of Fourth Amendment scholars further support 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. Justice Scalia delivered the opinion of the Court.
The State points to our decisions holding that the subjective intent of the officer is irrelevant.
But no one is impliedly invited to enter the protected premises of the home in order to do nothing but conduct a search. See ante, at 7, n. 3. But those cases merely hold that a stop or search that is objectively reasonable is not vitiated by the fact that the officer’s real reason for making the stop or search has nothing to do with the validating reason. . Thus, argues Jardines, a Fourth Amendment search occurs even where the police officers are lawfully outside the home but use search devices to obtain information or draw inferences about what is going on inside the home from what is emanating from the home. Fourth Amendment provides in relevant part that the “right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated.” The Amendment establishes a simple baseline, one that for much of our history formed the exclusive basis for its protections: When “the Government obtains information by physically intruding” on persons, houses, papers, or effects, “a ‘search’ within the original meaning of the L., C. & P. S. 385 (1955–1956) (hereinafter Sloane). (“After the officers came closer and detected the distinct odor of marihuana, they had probable cause to believe that the vehicles contained contraband”); United States v. Ventresca, And so the sentiment “my home is my own,” while originating in property law, now also denotes a common understanding—extending even beyond that law’s formal protections—about an especially private sphere. “I know that odors may emanate from my building and that atmospheric conditions, such as the force and direction of the wind, may affect the strength of those odors when they reach a spot where members of the public may lawfully stand. National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, Florida Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, To Sniff or Not to Sniff? J.L.