Passing the Sniff Test

At the heart of the issue is a 2006 case involving the Miami-Dade Police Department and the use of a sniffer dog outside of the home of Joelis Jardines. The case began with an anonymous tip, which led to a warrantless surveillance operation outside of Jardines' residence. During the operation, there was an absence of activity within the house so detectives brought a drug-sniffing dog to the front door, where it alerted to the smell of marijuana. As a result of the canine hit, and other pertinent information, a search warrant was obtained for the property.

During the ensuing search, officers found 179 marijuana plants, valued at about $700,000. Jardines attempted to escape out a back door but was ultimately arrested and charged with marijuana trafficking and stealing electricity for the grow operation.


Jardines pleaded not guilty and asked that all evidence gathered from the home be suppressed. According to Jardines, the drug-sniff was a violation of his Fourth Amendment rights, which provides protection against unreasonable searches and seizures. A trial judge agreed with Jardines and threw out the evidence but an appeals court eventually overturned that ruling. However, the ruling was once again reversed by the Florida Supreme Court and on Friday, the US Supreme Court took up the case. The high court is expected to hear arguments in April.

According to the state of Florida, which is backed by 18 other states, drug-sniffing dogs are commonly used to detect illegal drugs and officers should not be required to get a warrant before using this resource. Jardines and others have a different take on the situation, claiming that the sniff was an invasion of privacy.

This isn't the first case of its kind to hit the courts. In fact, the Supreme Court has ruled on several cases concerning the use of trained canines to detect weapons, drugs, and explosives. In the past, the Supreme Court has ruled that, because a sniff is not a true search, a warrant is not required prior to either a luggage sniff at an airport or during a routine traffic stop. Taking these past rulings into account, the state of Florida is hoping that the high court will determine that the same applies to the use of a detection dog outside of a private residence.

However, only time will tell. The court's passed decisions have also made it clear that individuals are entitled to a greater degree of privacy within their own homes than they are when they are on the road or at the airport. In Kyllo v. United States, a 2001 case, the high court ruled that thermal imaging technology could not be used from outside of a residence to pick up heat from marijuana producing operations because other lawful, but private activity, could also be picked up by the equipment.

Jardine's trial will not move forward until the Supreme Court reaches a decision on the matter. In the meantime though, he has a February trial date for a 2010 on charges of armed robbery and aggravated assault. He is currently free on bail.

The Supreme Court is expected to deliver a decision by the end of June. The case is Florida v. Jardines.