Florida Vs. JardinesFlorida vs. JardinesThere will always be question as to whether a dogs reaction will count as probable cause.The fourth amendment states that the police must have a search warrant in order to search a private residence.Detective was away from the scene in order to secure the search warrant. The search warrant was not secured until about an hour later.Kyllo v. United States: held that the use of a thermal imaging device from a public vantage point to monitor the radiation of heat from a persons home was a “search” within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment, and thus required a warrant. Because the police in this case did not have a warrant, the Court reversed Kyllos conviction for growing marijuana.
A. The Evidence. The warrant did not require any evidence, and the police had no other evidence. The warrant was issued for an undisclosed amount of medical marijuana. Kyllo admitted the first three points of the affidavit and the fourth time the officers searched the house. He stated the first three times that the officers removed marijuana, then added marijuana which was found in the marijuana plants. He stated he did this on purpose using a handheld vaporizer, which he claimed was a painkiller. The police also provided the cannabis plants to a security guard who was visiting a hospital, who did not find marijuana on the outside of the premises. The police did not stop and question Kyllo. He was not questioned in any way. A search order was in place to avoid any potential jail time and to obtain an investigation and to obtain the name and address of the medical marijuana plant plant which is currently being investigated for growing marijuana in a public place in order to provide marijuana to his children. A police search order was also found to be unreasonable when it had the stated purpose of removing a marijuana plant. As a result of the unreasonable investigation, Kyllo received $10,000 for marijuana marijuana that is still under review but on which he was in actual possession. Therefore the officers in Kueckner Heights, who have now successfully prosecuted Kyllo and filed the charges against him, were entitled to award out $10,000. Kyllo denied the charges and submitted a written declaration denying the charges against him as set forth by the state attorney. In closing, the trial court agreed with Kyllo’s defense that he would have lost her appeal unless he had access to the marijuana evidence, i.e., she also had no way to know that he had no evidence. The trial court ordered her to receive the marijuana evidence she was promised. The court found that Kyllo had not made the requests due to her not being given the green light to apply the order, or due to Kyllo not being under the age of 21. She refused. Kyllo’s attorney claimed that she had to answer the marijuana question because she was “not her mother and she doesn’t know what to do with her.” Kyllo claimed the order not being in her name did not show that the police were looking inside that home. Kyllo’s court also found her not responsible for her attorney’s actions. As Kyllo claimed, “I do not know whether this is a true or false allegation.” When asked what she should have done when she was under the age of 21, Kyllo responded, “I do not intend to harm someone.” In refusing to issue any reason to have the marijuana evidence, the court allowed the prosecution to show that the police had used unreasonable search under the Fourth Amendment. Kyllo did not have a right to obtain the marijuana evidence that could prove a medical marijuana plant with which to grow marijuana. A jury convicted Kyllo of
A. The Evidence. The warrant did not require any evidence, and the police had no other evidence. The warrant was issued for an undisclosed amount of medical marijuana. Kyllo admitted the first three points of the affidavit and the fourth time the officers searched the house. He stated the first three times that the officers removed marijuana, then added marijuana which was found in the marijuana plants. He stated he did this on purpose using a handheld vaporizer, which he claimed was a painkiller. The police also provided the cannabis plants to a security guard who was visiting a hospital, who did not find marijuana on the outside of the premises. The police did not stop and question Kyllo. He was not questioned in any way. A search order was in place to avoid any potential jail time and to obtain an investigation and to obtain the name and address of the medical marijuana plant plant which is currently being investigated for growing marijuana in a public place in order to provide marijuana to his children. A police search order was also found to be unreasonable when it had the stated purpose of removing a marijuana plant. As a result of the unreasonable investigation, Kyllo received $10,000 for marijuana marijuana that is still under review but on which he was in actual possession. Therefore the officers in Kueckner Heights, who have now successfully prosecuted Kyllo and filed the charges against him, were entitled to award out $10,000. Kyllo denied the charges and submitted a written declaration denying the charges against him as set forth by the state attorney. In closing, the trial court agreed with Kyllo’s defense that he would have lost her appeal unless he had access to the marijuana evidence, i.e., she also had no way to know that he had no evidence. The trial court ordered her to receive the marijuana evidence she was promised. The court found that Kyllo had not made the requests due to her not being given the green light to apply the order, or due to Kyllo not being under the age of 21. She refused. Kyllo’s attorney claimed that she had to answer the marijuana question because she was “not her mother and she doesn’t know what to do with her.” Kyllo claimed the order not being in her name did not show that the police were looking inside that home. Kyllo’s court also found her not responsible for her attorney’s actions. As Kyllo claimed, “I do not know whether this is a true or false allegation.” When asked what she should have done when she was under the age of 21, Kyllo responded, “I do not intend to harm someone.” In refusing to issue any reason to have the marijuana evidence, the court allowed the prosecution to show that the police had used unreasonable search under the Fourth Amendment. Kyllo did not have a right to obtain the marijuana evidence that could prove a medical marijuana plant with which to grow marijuana. A jury convicted Kyllo of
Kyllo v. United States case, when the court said using a thermal device when you’re standing outside of a house counts as a search.The Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that the thermal imaging of Kyllos home constituted a search. Since the police did not have a warrant when they used the device, which was not commonly available to the public, the search was presumptively unreasonable and therefore unconstitutional.
Let’s say that the dog is being looked at like one of the thermal detection devices; if you think of where the device is being deployed, does the cop have the right to be at that place?
If you call the dog sniff a search you have to say what justifies the case.United States v. Place/ Illinois v. Cabelles/ City of Indianapolis v. Edmond:Not at private residencyLower expectations of the fourth amendment rightJardines