Go to the following website. The court is going to review soem 4th amendment court cases. What is the issue or question before the court? How do you think the court will decide? What will be the impact of their decision? How do you feel the court should decide and why?
20 Comments
Dana Cronin
11/30/2012 08:47:23 am
The issue before the court is, how important is the reliability of a drug dog that determines probable cause and how far should we go to test for this reliability? I think the court will decide that, in court, the police force must provide extensive evidence of field experience and certification of the dogs and the policemen themselves. The impact of this will be great on the police force because they will have to be very cautious when dealing with drug dogs. They will have to be certain that only the dogs that have extensive experience and have passed all of their own tests are the ones that are being used to determine probable cause. They also won't be able to cheat the law anymore by using dogs trained by other companies. Thus, it will require more time and money for the police force.
Reply
Jessica Cendejas
11/30/2012 02:40:43 pm
In the Court Case Florida v. Jardines, the real issue is whether or not does this dog search in a home violate the fourth ammendment which permits people to be secure in their house without unreasonable searches or seizure? I agree with Dana, the dog's accuracy in determining inappropriate activities may be defficient. In this case, if a police officer were to barge into someone's house with a narcotic dog and without a warrant, and didn't find anything there, Yes. It would indeed be a violation of the fourth ammendment. The courts must determine whether a dog is a "reasonable" reason or not. Regardless, possession of marihuana or cocaine is not a deathly matter and there is time for the officers to obtain a warrant before searching for them inside anybody's property. I believe that the court will rule stating that this is not a violation of the fourth ammendment in the case that it is a reasonable cause, and I think the impact of this will be more people smoking illegal substances in public. If it's more likely for a dog to smell what you're doing and the law enforcement is able to come inside your house without a warrant, then what is your private home good for? It'd just be easier to find a public place without many occupants, do your business and leave no trace. Now, by no means am I supporting illegal activity. No. Everyone who breaks the law, and is busted with drugs, should be punished in the same manner. However they should be busted the right way, so that they can't file a lawsuit against the officer who arrests them. In order for there to be no doubt about whether there is a violation of the fourth ammendment or not, police officers should not allow their dogs inside a house . Period. They should obtain a warrant, then do their busting. Now if the dog is simply on the door step, that does not infringe upon's anyone safety and security in their house, therefore that's perfectly constitutional.
Reply
Tara Beltrami
12/1/2012 07:41:18 am
The issue of Court Case Florida v. Jardines, Does searching with a dog for drugs need a warrant to search on the property outside the residence violate the 4th Amendment to the U.S Constitution?
Reply
Audrey Dappen
12/1/2012 09:22:15 am
The issue before the courts in the court case Florida v. Jardines is essentially whether or not Frankie the narcotics detection dog sniffing at someone's front door counts as a search under the 4th amendment and are the use of such dogs unconstitutional under the same amendment. I think that it will be close but that the court will rule that no drug dogs are not unconstitutional and that they do not count as a search because they are not actually going through someone's home. Furthermore the dog in question was not just walking through the nabourhood and sniffign at every door, the police had a tip off that there were drugs being grown and sold at that specific house. I believe that as long as they have some suspission that the house in question has narcotics or other drugs inside, then the police should be able to use dogs. But that doesnt count however if they are just walking down the street sniffing at every house without reason. As long as the police have a reasonable suspicsion then yes it is fully constitutional to use dogs as a tool to find people who have illegal drugs in their posession or home.
Reply
Jessica Bernal
12/1/2012 10:46:54 am
The Issue for the court case Florida V. Harris is, How should Courts determine whether a drug detecting dog that alerts to the presence of drug odors is sufficiently reliable to establish probable cause to search a vehicle? I think the court will decide that inorder to make an evaluation of any drug detecting dogs’ reliability they must look at the dogs’ certification, record of performance, and the experience of the officer handling the dog. The impact of this decision will be on the police since they will have to be more cautious with the training of drug detecting dogs. They must restructure their testing standards to only allow dogs that have practiced and showed no sign of error in their detections to pass the tests or be certified. I believe that regardless of any dogs’ background in the field if it detects an illegal substance in someone’s vehicle the person should suffer the consequences because they are choosing to carry something they know is illegal.
Reply
gaby gonzalez
12/1/2012 12:08:51 pm
The issue/question before the Court Case Florida v. Jardines is whether or not does the dog search in at a home violates the 4h ammendment ? I think the court will not count as the dog sniffing the houses because they are not actually going through someone's home.the dog was reacted as unconstitutional because the dog never went into a person house he only sniffed outside of the house and realize there was some type of drug in their. also the police officer didnt just walk down the neighborhood with a narcotic dog because he wanted to he did it because he had a tip that their were drugs in that neighborhood. i think the court should not use the dog as a reference becuase the dog never went into the person home.also meanwhile the police officer has tips that there is durgs some where then its constitutional to use the dogs as a tool as long as they dont violate the 4th amendement that says "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
Reply
Matteo Abreu
12/1/2012 01:46:21 pm
In the court case Flordia v. Harris the argument is based on the probable cause to search. Probable cause is under the surcamstances of fair probability that contraband or drugs are present in the location the officers wish to search. The issue is how should courts determine whether drug detecting dogs are certified to alert the present officer of drug odors and is it sufficiently liable to establish probable cause to search a home or vehicle. The facts in this case start with Clayton Harris being pulled over by a local Flordia police officer for an expired registration sticker. He was then searched by a detecting dog due to suspicion, contents were found in relativity to making meth. The Flordia Courts were over-ruled by the Flordia Supreme Court which ruled that Clayton Harris had been violated of his own rights. The Flordia Supreme Court is more consistent with the Federal Supreme Court and explains that records of the dogs training and that the dog is a certified search dog. I believe that Clayton Harris was in the wrong place at the wrong time and it is unfortunate that he had an expired registration sticker but there was definitely a police officer looking for someting extra and when he looked in and saw the open beer container he felt it was a probable cause to search the vehicle. The dog was a reinforcement to his "probable cause." The Flordia Supreme Court did a great job backing up the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution.
Reply
Yesenia Gomez
12/1/2012 03:42:31 pm
In the court case Florida v. Jardines the issue is, would an officer violate the fourth ammendment by not giving a warrent before taking a drug detecting dog to a house? Clyaton Harris was pulled over for having an expired registration sticker and was then searched by the officer for having an open beer. I believe that the court wont be counting it as a search because the dog was certainly not going through the house, it was standing outside and from there sniffed marijuana that was being grown and sold in that house. In my opinion, as long as the police has reasonable suspicsions about someone or something, there shouldn't be any problem bringing a dog to prove that their theory is right. This is completely constitutional, and it is not a violation of the fourth amendment, if someone breaks a law or is caught with drugs they should be punished regardless who they are.
Reply
Andrea Gomes
12/1/2012 03:52:52 pm
The issue brought before the court in Florida v. Harris is, does the use of a narcotic detection dog violate fourth amendment rights if there is no search warrant prior to the dogs suspicions? I believe that the court will decide that Frankie the detection dog did violate Harris' fourth amendment rights because the dog and his handler trespassed with out a warrant.Therefore, all the evidence obtained will be thrown out. Their decision will impact the use and reliability of detection dogs. It will limit the circumstances in which dogs can be used to detect drugs. Like Dana, I believe that policemen will become more cautious when dealing with drug dogs by making sure that they are qualified and that they do not exceed their boundaries when it comes to the law. I believe that Harris should be charged for possession of drugs no matter whether the dog was an unreliable determination of probable cause. Drugs are illegal, therefore, he should be convicted.
Reply
Melanie Gouveia
12/2/2012 01:12:57 pm
In the court case, Florida v. Jardines, the issue is: Does an officer who uses a narcotic search dog at the front door of homes without a warrant violate the fourth amendment? I think the court will decide that it does not violate the fourth amendment, but in order to stop officers from taking advantage of the decision by going door-to-door freely, they will create a restriction that states that officers can only do this under reasonable suspicion. The impact will be that more homes that contain narcotic drugs will be reported and homeowners will be arrested more frequently. Personally, I think that the court should decide that it is a violation of the fourth amendment because bringing a search dog onto a homeowners private property without a warrant is an invasion of privacy and unconstitutional.
Reply
Joseph Davis
12/2/2012 04:24:38 pm
Jardine was said to have been in possession of marijuana by an anonymous source, yet the police did not get a warrant to search his home. Police officers showed up to Jardine’s house without a warrant, and with a drug dog. Outside the house the dog let the police officers know that he smelled drugs, which made them enter the boundaries of the home, walking in on Jardine trying to flee the scene, and low and behold, marijuana. Even though Frankie the search dog did not technically enter the home while sniffing, did the police officers infringe Jardines right to no unreasonable searches or seizure under the Fourth Amendment? I believe the court’s decision, under this circumstance, will be no. The strictures of a “search” under the Supreme Court is, one, when the person expects privacy in the thing being searched, and, two, when society believes that expectation to be reasonable. The state said that Frankie, the drug dog, by not coming in contact of the front door by six feet did not violate Jardine’s privacy, and that the officers were merely following procedure by responding to Frankie’s reaction to what he smelled in the air. I do not believe this is just, as the only reason they were in that area at that time was because of the anonymous tip off they had received prior. If they were going to barge in on the privacy of the home, drug dog or not, they should’ve taken the time to get a warrant. The only time a drug dog’s reactions should be followed up on, should be under that warrant to search the privacy of the home, or on random reaction (without a tip off). So much could’ve happened by coincidence with the dog. What if he just coincidentally smelled marijuana wafting through the air from the next house over? This probably didn’t happen, but who’s to say that it didn’t? Going to Jardine’s house with the anonymous tip off and without a warrant, whether they entered the home or not, should still be considered a search, and a search of the private home requires a warrant. Without a warrant, the smelling of drugs by a drug search dog in a residential area or otherwise should be considered too prompted by outside variables to follow up on immediately. Like I said, a warrant should have been issued before they even followed up on the anonymous tip off. Without a warrant, the reaction of the dog should not have been considered evidence enough to enter the home.
Reply
Jorge Benitez
12/3/2012 01:58:57 am
The court case, Florida v. Jardine, questions the 4th Amendment rights of probable searches. More specifically involving drug-detecting dog instigating a home search with no prior warrant or sufficient evidence. In Jardines case, a drug dog was brought to his door with no evidence. The dog caught a scent of marijuana thus allowing the police to search his home. Jardine states that the search was an invasion of his privacy and unconstitutional even though drugs were found in his home. Although, the police declared that since they were farther than six feet from his door they did not violate his rights. I believe the use of dogs has severely aided the fight against drugs, but they still need to be used in the confines of the law and follow the constitution. For this case, Jardine is guilty but this brings forth a valid arguement. Should dogs be allowed to patrol the streets looking for paraphernalia on random persons? or inspecting everyhouse in a ghetto neighborhood? I think this issue needs to be seriously reviewed and made clear in legislature.
Reply
Danny Brink
12/3/2012 11:42:17 am
In the court case Florida v. Jardines, Professor Douglas Godfrey discusses if having drug dogs search property without a search warrant is violating the fourth amendment. In this case, police came onto Jardine's property and the dog made it clear that drugs were in the house, and even though the dog didn't smell the house directly, they later got the search warrant and invaded the house and found marijuana and Jardine fleeing the scene. In my opinion, I think the court should rule in favor of home owners privacy. Drug dogs are extremely important for our nations safety and law enforcement, but to intrude a private home just on suspicion is a violation of the fourth amendment. I also feel like no matter how much the dogs are trained, it still invades the privacy of the people, which in turn is uncostitutional. And if the court agrees with me, then the police along with their drug dogs will have to be restricted more on where they will be allowed to search, because if they could just pick out any house to search merely out of suspision, then the fourth amendment would need to be rewritten in order to keep the people from complaining.
Reply
Joey Brink
12/3/2012 01:36:27 pm
The issue of the Florida v Jardines court case is if having drug dogs search property without a search warrant is violating the fourth amendment. The authorities first started out by watching a house which was perfectly legal. Next, a drug dog was used by the police to sniff out near the house because the police were suspicious, but they did not yet have a warrant. The dog clearly sniffed out something that was not legal, so the police then got a search warrant and they entered the house only to find the illegal narcotics they were hoping to find and they also found Jardine trying to escape the house. I think that this case will be a close one but the court will rule in favor of the home owner. Although drug dogs are very important for the safety of Americans, the cops still have to respect the privacy of people and go through the proper techniques and use the correct systems to bring bad guys down. I think that no matter what the court decides, the restrictions on police searches and how they use their dogs will be changed.
Reply
Emili crispin
12/3/2012 02:24:09 pm
Reply
Emeli crispin
12/3/2012 02:37:02 pm
The police didn't have a warrant to begin with and they enter the house illegally just because the police dog smelled marijuana inside the house.the police did not handle things legally because they didn't analyze the cituation and didn't gather enough evidence.first they didn't follow procedure by knocking on the door saying the police is here. Second they knocked down the door not giving the suspect a chance to give any explanation .the court and the government is on the defendants side because they agree that the dog smelling marijuana is not enough evidence to brake into a persons home.the dogs used are specially trained to do drugs searches in airports but not in homes.in conclusion it's illegal to go into a house with a narcotics dog with no warrant and lack of evidence
Reply
Emeli crispin
12/3/2012 02:38:41 pm
The police didn't have a warrant to begin with and they enter the house illegally just because the police dog smelled marijuana inside the house.the police did not handle things legally because they didn't analyze the cituation and didn't gather enough evidence.first they didn't follow procedure by knocking on the door saying the police is here. Second they knocked down the door not giving the suspect a chance to give
Reply
Michael Crean
12/3/2012 03:02:42 pm
The court case, "Flordia vs Harris," illustrates the usage of probable cause.The issue; however, is that of concern due to the question of how should courts determine whether drug detecting dogs are certified to alert the present officer of drug odors? And is the dog sufficiently liable to establish probable cause? Clayton Harris was pulled over for an expired registration sticker. He was later searched due to suspicion and an open beer can on the drivers side. The officer depolyed his drug detecting dog and found content related to making meth. In court the police must provide evidence of certification and field experience for both the dog and themselves. The Flordia Courts were over-ruled by the Flordia Supreme Court which stated that Clayton Harris had been violated of his own rights, and that the state needs to do more then provide evidence that the dog has been trained and certified. The Flordia Supreme Court is more consistent with the Federal Supreme Court and explains that the dog was a certified drug detecting dog. I believe that the officer was looking for a reason to have probable cause and justified his reasoning when he spotted the beer can. Mr. Harris is a mediocre crimminal and was stupid enough to get caught; deserved to get arrested. All in all the officer did his job and the courts backed up the fourth amendment.
Reply
kevin bankson
12/7/2012 02:15:32 pm
In the court case Florida v. Jardines, Professor Douglas Godfrey discusses if having drug dogs search property without a search warrant is violating the fourth amendment. The police didn't have a warrant to begin with and they enter the house illegally just because the police dog smelled marijuana inside the house. i agree with danny when he says In my opinion, I think the court should rule in favor of home owners privacy. If someone carries the ingredients to make meth in their cars, they should be arrested whether or not the drug dog had sufficient field experience.
Reply
kevin bankson
12/7/2012 02:16:10 pm
i goofed
Reply
Leave a Reply. |
Mr. LPart teacher/part entertainer/ part coach/ part task master Archives
November 2014
Categories |