Sign up to save your podcasts
Or
Share Do Houses Have More Protection Than Apartments?
Share to email
Share to Facebook
Share to X
Share to email
Share to Facebook
Share to X
Or
Do Houses Have More Protection Than Apartments?
Episode 464 (Duration 19:10) Here’s a quick summary of the cases that suggest, that maybe, houses
have more constitutional protection than apartments.
In This Episode…
We discuss the following cases:
* Florida v. Jardines, 133 S. Ct. at 1409 (2013)* People v. Burns, 2016 IL 118973 (March)* People v. Bonilla, 2017 IL App (3d) 160457 (June)* People v. Martin, 2017 IL App (1st) 143255 (June)
Florida v. Jardines
Florida v. Jardines, 133 S. Ct. at 1409 (2013).
“Property based approach” holds that dog brought to the front step of a single family home constitutes a search.
Gist
The Court considered whether using a drug sniffing dog on a homeowner’s porch to investigate the contents of a home was a “search” within the meaning of the fourth amendment.
Facts
Jardines was growing the marijuana in his home.
This case began when police are told he had a growing operation in his home. DEA agent with a sniff dog knock on front door, the dog alerts to presence of drugs, police leave, and comeback with a warrant.
To be clear, the police did not go into the home with the police dog. Before getting the warrant, the officers and the dog remained on the front stoop and only walked on the walkway of the stoop.
Property Rights
The Court stated that pursuant to Katz, “property rights are not the sole measure of Fourth Amendment violations.” The Court stated that the area “immediately surrounding and associated with the home,” known as curtilage, was “part of the home itself for Fourth Amendment purposes.”
The Court then assessed whether the officer’s’ investigation “was accomplished through an unlicensed physical intrusion.” The Court stated that a police officer without a warrant “may approach a home and knock, precisely because that is no more than any private citizen might do.”
Holding
Ultimately, the Court found that the use of trained police dogs to investigate a home and its immediate surroundings was a “search” within the meaning of the fourth amendment.
The Court commented that the Fourth Amendment actually uses the word “houses” (also known as your home) then held that: 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 Fourth Amendment” has undoubtedly occurred. Jardines, 133 S.Ct. 1409 (2013); quoting United States v. Jones, 565 US 945, 132 S.Ct. 945 (2012) (this is a GPS tracking case).
View all episodes
By Police NuggetsEpisode 464 (Duration 19:10) Here’s a quick summary of the cases that suggest, that maybe, houses
have more constitutional protection than apartments.
In This Episode…
We discuss the following cases:
* Florida v. Jardines, 133 S. Ct. at 1409 (2013)* People v. Burns, 2016 IL 118973 (March)* People v. Bonilla, 2017 IL App (3d) 160457 (June)* People v. Martin, 2017 IL App (1st) 143255 (June)
Florida v. Jardines
Florida v. Jardines, 133 S. Ct. at 1409 (2013).
“Property based approach” holds that dog brought to the front step of a single family home constitutes a search.
Gist
The Court considered whether using a drug sniffing dog on a homeowner’s porch to investigate the contents of a home was a “search” within the meaning of the fourth amendment.
Facts
Jardines was growing the marijuana in his home.
This case began when police are told he had a growing operation in his home. DEA agent with a sniff dog knock on front door, the dog alerts to presence of drugs, police leave, and comeback with a warrant.
To be clear, the police did not go into the home with the police dog. Before getting the warrant, the officers and the dog remained on the front stoop and only walked on the walkway of the stoop.
Property Rights
The Court stated that pursuant to Katz, “property rights are not the sole measure of Fourth Amendment violations.” The Court stated that the area “immediately surrounding and associated with the home,” known as curtilage, was “part of the home itself for Fourth Amendment purposes.”
The Court then assessed whether the officer’s’ investigation “was accomplished through an unlicensed physical intrusion.” The Court stated that a police officer without a warrant “may approach a home and knock, precisely because that is no more than any private citizen might do.”
Holding
Ultimately, the Court found that the use of trained police dogs to investigate a home and its immediate surroundings was a “search” within the meaning of the fourth amendment.
The Court commented that the Fourth Amendment actually uses the word “houses” (also known as your home) then held that: 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 Fourth Amendment” has undoubtedly occurred. Jardines, 133 S.Ct. 1409 (2013); quoting United States v. Jones, 565 US 945, 132 S.Ct. 945 (2012) (this is a GPS tracking case).