Pubdate: Wed, 27 Mar 2013
Source: Seattle Times (WA)
Copyright: 2013 The New York Times
Contact:  http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/409
Author: Adam Liptak, The New York Times
Page: A3

COURT LIMITS DRUG-DOG RANGE

WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court on Tuesday limited the ability of the 
police to use drug-sniffing dogs outside homes.

The case concerned Franky, a chocolate Labrador retriever who 
detected the smell of marijuana outside a Florida house used by 
Joelis Jardines. Based on Franky's signal, the police obtained a 
warrant to search the house, and they found a marijuana growing 
operation inside.

Jardines moved to suppress the evidence, saying that using Franky to 
sniff around his residence was an unreasonable search barred by the 
Fourth Amendment.

The Florida Supreme Court agreed, and so did a majority of the U.S. 
Supreme Court.

The 5-4 decision in the case, Florida v. Jardines, featured an 
unusual alignment of justices. Justice Antonin Scalia, a member of 
the court's conservative wing, wrote the majority decision.

He was joined by Justice Clarence Thomas, a frequent ally, along with 
three of the court's more liberal members, Justices Ruth Bader 
Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan.

Scalia said the Fourth Amendment, which prohibits unreasonable 
searches, is particularly concerned with the home and its immediate 
surroundings.

Allowing a dog on a 6-foot leash to roam outside a residence, he 
said, was "an unlicensed physical intrusion" that was different in 
kind from visits from, say, salesmen, Girl Scouts or trick-- or-treaters.

"To find a visitor knocking on the door is routine (even if sometimes 
unwelcome)," Scalia wrote.

"To spot that same visitor exploring the front porch 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."

In dissent, Justice Samuel Alito Jr., joined by Chief Justice John 
Roberts Jr. and justices Anthony Kennedy and Stephen Breyer, said 
neither rationale was sufficient to convert a visit by a man and a 
dog into a search.

"A reasonable person understands that odors emanating from a house 
may be detected from locations that are open to the public," Alito 
wrote, "and a reasonable person will not count on the strength of 
those odors remaining within the range that, while detectable by a 
dog, cannot be smelled by a human."
- ---
MAP posted-by: Jay Bergstrom