569 U.S. 1, 133 S. Ct. 1409 (2013)
In 2006, Detective William Pedraja of the Miami-Dade Police Department received an unverified tip that marijuana was being grown in the home of respondent Joelis Jardines.1
One month later, the Department and the Drug Enforcement Administration sent a joint surveillance team to Jardines' home.2 Detective Pedraja watched the home for fifteen minutes and saw no vehicles in the driveway or activity around the home, and could not see inside because the blinds were drawn.3
Detective Pedraja then approached Jardines' home accompanied by Detective Douglas Bartelt, a trained canine handler who had just arrived at the scene with his drug-sniffing dog.4 The dog was trained to detect the scent of marijuana, cocaine, heroin, and several other drugs, indicating the presence of any of these substances through particular behavioral changes recognizable by his handler.5 Detective Bartelt had the dog on a six-foot leash, owing in part to the dog's wild nature and tendency to dart around erratically while searching.6 As the dog approached Jardines' front porch, he apparently sensed one of the odors he had been trained to detect, and began energetically exploring the area for the strongest point source of that odor by tracking back and forth.7 After sniffing the base of the front door, the dog sat, which is the trained behavior upon discovering the odor's strongest point.8 Detective Bartelt then pulled the dog away from the door and returned to his vehicle, informing Detective Pedraja that there had been a positive alert for narcotics.9
On the basis of what he had learned at the home, Detective Pedraja applied for and received a warrant to search the residence.10 When the warrant was executed later that day, Jardines attempted to flee and was arrested; the search revealed marijuana plants, and he was charged with trafficking in cannabis.11 At trial, Jardines moved to suppress the marijuana plants on the ground that the canine investigation was an unreasonable search.12 The trial court granted the motion, and the Florida Third District Court of Appeal reversed.13 On a petition for discretionary review, the Florida Supreme Court quashed the decision of the Third District Court of Appeal and approved the trial court's decision to suppress.14 The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari, limited to the question of whether the officers' behavior was a search within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment.15
Whether the officers' use of a drug-sniffing dog on Jardines' front porch to investigate the contents of his home constituted a search within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment?16
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 occurred.17 The area immediately surrounding and associated with the home, known as the curtilage, is part of the home itself for Fourth Amendment purposes.18 The front porch is the classic exemplar of curtilage.19 An implied license permits a visitor to approach the front door to knock and speak with occupants.20 The scope of that license is limited to a specific purpose and does not extend to bringing a trained drug-detection dog onto the porch to conduct a forensic search.21
Yes. The officers physically entered the curtilage of Jardines' home by bringing the drug-sniffing dog onto the front porch.22 They gathered information by having the dog sniff the base of the front door and alert to the presence of narcotics. This conduct exceeded the scope of the implied license.23
The purpose was to conduct a search rather than to speak with the occupant, as evidenced by the use of the dog on a leash to explore the area around the door.
The officers' use of the drug-sniffing dog on Jardines' front porch constituted a search within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment.24
Related opinions on this issue
Joined by Ginsburg And Sotomayor, Jj.
Justice Kagan concurred that the conduct was a search on both property and privacy grounds.25 She analogized the drug-sniffing dog to high-powered binoculars used to peer into the home.26 This exceeded the license granted to visitors and invaded Jardines' reasonable expectation of privacy.27
She further observed that the case could have been resolved under Kyllo because the dog is a device not in general public use.28 It was used to explore details of the home that would otherwise have been unknowable without physical intrusion.
Joined by Roberts, C. J., And Kennedy And Breyer, Jj.
Justice Alito dissented, arguing that the majority's trespass rule finds no support in common law because dogs have been used in law enforcement for centuries without creating such a prohibition.29 He maintained that the implied license allows police to approach the front door for any purpose including gathering evidence.30 He concluded that the conduct did not violate reasonable expectations of privacy since odors from a home may be detected from public areas and a dog's superior sense of smell does not alter that analysis.31