Was Franky the Dog’s Drug Sniff Constitutional? Supreme Court Takes Up Case
EmailThe Supreme Court agreed on Friday to take up a case regarding Franky the police dog and his drug-sniffing nose.
Specifically, the Court will review whether a dog sniff at the doorstep of a private home is a search under the Fourth Amendment, requiring a warrant.
In 2006 the Miami Dade Police Department received a Crime Stoppers tip that a man was growing marijuana in his house. A month later, a drug task force came to the house with its narcotics dog Franky.
When a detective took the dog to the front porch, the dog alerted for drugs. Another detective knocked at the door and smelled marijuana. The detective left the site to obtain a warrant.
After the warrant was obtained, the officers found marijuana in the house and arrested Joelis Jardines. But Jardines later sued, asserting that the warrantless dog sniff at his house violated his Fourth Amendment rights. Jardines also argued that the detective’s smelling of the marijuana was tainted by the dog’s prior sniff.
In Court briefs, lawyers for Jardines argue that Franky got “a little bit wild” outside the house when he smelled the marijuana.
The Florida Supreme Court ruled the sniff — without a warrant — constituted an unreasonable search.
The Court said, “Given the special status accorded a citizens 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.”
In Court papers Florida Attorney General Pamela Jo Bondi said that the Florida Supreme Court had improperly relied on a prior Supreme Court case that found a warrant was necessary for the use of advanced drug searching technology in a home.
“A dog is a dog,” she writes. “Chocolate Labrador Retrievers are not ‘sophisticated systems.’ Rather they are common household pets that possess a naturally strong sense of smell.”
She also stressed, “The importance of dogs to law enforcement simply cannot be overstated. This Court should grant the petition and directly hold that a dog sniff of a house is not a Fourth Amendment search thereby restoring this valuable tool in the detection of numerous illegal and dangerous activities to law enforcement.”
Sen. Chuck Hagel's Defense Nomination Draws Criticism 
Congress Makes President Obama's Reelection Official 
RSS
Twitter
Facebook
Let’s see if I got this right:
Dog smells pot. Cop smells pot. Cop gets search warrant. Man has pot.
The man clearly had pot but is trying to avoid being arrested for breaking the law by using a technicality.
Loser.
Posted by: MadGuy1961 | January 6, 2012, 4:07 pm 4:07 pm
…..The law is a joke, on the wrong side of nature you might say.Proven too. Desperate and lonely, the law man stalks his next prey to earn his pay check. Enjoy it while it lasts, for it won’t last too much longer.
Posted by: RP---STAR | January 6, 2012, 4:28 pm 4:28 pm
UN-Constitutional, no doubt. Why don’t they just start going door to door?
Sorry Right Wingers, this isn’t a technicality, it’s a clear cut violation and even this conservative leaning court will affirm that without much delay. Probably only the Scoundrel Scalia and maybe Thomas will disagree.
Posted by: rob gunderson | January 6, 2012, 5:35 pm 5:35 pm
Seriously? First she states that “the importance of dogs to law enforcement simply cannot be overstated.” The she tries to assert that “they are common household pets.” Sorry Ms. Bondi, you cannot have it both ways, and you are certain to lose,
To state that TRAINED police dogs are not ‘sophisticated systems” is just patently untrue. Were that true, police departments everywhere would save a boatload of money that they spend purchasing specially bred and specially trained dogs, and they would just go to the pound and grab up whatever dog was available that day, and be off to make their rounds.
Had it truly been just a “common household pet,” as stated, there would have been no case. The “common household pet” would simply have stood at the door and wagged his/her tail, or done other normal dog things. The dog most likely would have smelled the drugs, but wouldn’t care, and certainly would not have had a way to indicate to the officers that he/she had smelled them.
A drug sniffing dog is absolutely a ‘sophisticated system,” and is no different from using any other specialized system. Ms. Bondi asserts that the case that the defense relied on does not apply because it was about “advanced drug searching technology.”. It certainly does apply, as a TRAINED dog IS “advanced drug searching technology.”
Technology is technology, and although any technology could have been in the presence of the drugs, had it not been specially built ( breeding for the dog) and specially programmed (training for the dog), it would never have detected drugs.
The police should not have even been at his front door without probable cause (and a random, anonymous call is NOT probable cause, or they would have had a warrant upon arrival)! Had they not violated the constitution in being on his doorstep, this would not have happened either.
Posted by: Shelly | January 7, 2012, 6:39 pm 6:39 pm
I’m as right wing as one gets, Rob and I think you are right on. That is very good analysis. Rp, sorry to burst your bubble, but you have a far better chance with a conservative court than a liberal one. The conservatives usually care what the document actually says.
Posted by: Bonzo Wunderfisch | January 9, 2012, 5:51 pm 5:51 pm
This is just another example of the legal system out of control. The logical equivalent of this situation is that a neighbor reports a suspicious situation in hot having seen their neighbor in a long while and noticing a bad smell coming from the house. So a mobile canine unit is close and dispatched to the house and finds smell like dead meat. Unfortunately, the officer is not allowed to enter the place to see what is happening since they might intrude on a killer that has been enjoying watching the body rot, more or less like the rest of us are doing with out legal system.
The smell is outside the house, if you are so dumb to not cover up the smell of the plants outside your place, it is not the same as an illegal search. The smell is in a public area, namely outside your house. It does not matter what was used to detect the smell in a public area, it still is a public area!
What a waste of legal resources and trust in the legal system.
Posted by: Josh | January 9, 2012, 7:21 pm 7:21 pm
Josh. My yard and my property is not public domain or public property. It is my PRIVATE property. No one has any business being on my property without a warrant. Walking up to my door is a violation of my rights. If the property in question was fenced and locked what would the outcome have been? I’m not condoning any illegal behavior on private property, but i am against ILLEGAL search and seizure. I was told by the Sheriff’s dept that the only LEGAL way i can prosecute trespassers on my PRIVATE property is to fence and post signs. That’s a load of crap.
Posted by: craig | January 10, 2012, 8:10 am 8:10 am