Florida v. Jardines (11-564)

argument 11-564

Florida v. Jardines

Supreme Court of the United States 1h 1m 6 speakers 8 chapters transcribed 4 days ago official recording ↗

▲ 0

Transcript

jump: chapters · speakers · find in transcript

Transcript

Transcript generated automatically by AI and may contain errors.

What is the legal issue the Court is reviewing in Florida v. Jardines?

Donald G. Garre 0:01

We'll

John G. Roberts 0:02

hear argument first this morning in case eleven five sixty four, Florida versus Jardines. Mr Garr?

Donald G. Garre 0:08

Thank you, Mr Chief Justice, and may it please the court. In the three prior cases in which this court has held that a dog sniff is not a search, this court has emphasized that a dog sniff is unique both in terms of the manner in which information is obtained and the nature of the information revealed. As to the latter point, this court has emphasized that a drug detection dog reveals only the presence of contraband and that no one has a legitimate expectation of privacy in that.

Anthony M. Kennedy 0:35

I mean that just can't be a proposition that we can accept. Um across the board. Uh nobody uh in under that view has an interest in contraband in their home. The question is, can you find out the combraband? It's just a circular argument. And if And in the was it uh the Kabalas case that talk about that, if I have the right name? Contraband was visible. It was almost like the smoking gun falls out. Well, of course, there's no interest in the smoking gun when it falls out in front of you. So I just don't think that works.

Donald G. Garre 1:05

Well, Justice Kennedy, in the Cabayez case, the contraband wasn't visible before the dog alerted. Uh in in the home case, we're not saying that uh you don't have a legitimate expectation of privacy in the home. Of course you do. The question is whether you have a legitimate expectation. So

Elena Kagan 1:20

doesn't that mean that Um what's in your home? That's not visible to the public. has an expectation of privacy as well.

Donald G. Garre 1:30

Not when it comes to uh a contraband, Your Honor. And we think that the Kylo case helps

Elena Kagan 1:35

that that is circular. Then why do you need a search warrant? If you have no expectation of privacy in the in the contraband, why bother even with a search warrant?

Donald G. Garre 1:44

Because, Your Honor, when you have a search warrant and you go into home, there's going to be a lot of private information that you're going to come across, even if your expectation is of finding evidence of a crime.

Antonin Scalia 1:53

Mr. Glar, does your argument mean you say minimally intrusive? And it the dog will detect only contraband. That the police then are at liberty, say to go into a neighborhood that's known to be uh a drug dealing neighborhood, go into just go down the street, have the dog sniff in front of every door or go into an apartment building. Is that d I I gather th that that is your position.

Donald G. Garre 2:26

Y Your Honor, they could do that, just like the police could go door to door and the knock on the doors and hope that they will find out evidence of wrongdoing that way. The the two responses this court has always pointed to is the restraint on resources and the check of community hostility. Here the police were combating a serious academic epidemic of grow houses, uh hundreds of houses each year that were a scourge to the community, not only in terms just of the drugs that they were growing on.

Antonin Scalia 2:53

And on the lawn. No dogs allowed.

Donald G. Garre 3:00

I think that would be different, Your Honor. It would be different and that's a way in which the house is different than a car. Hone homeowners can restrict access to people who come up to their front door by putting gates or sign out.

Stephen G. Breyer 3:11

Well, that's right. And and and there's such a thing as uh what is called the cartilage of of a house. As I understand the law, the the the police are entitled to use binoculars. to look into the House if uh If the residents leave the blinds open, right? That's right. But they but if they can't see clearly enough from a distance, they're not entitled to go onto the cartilage of the house inside the gate and use the binoculars from that vantage point, are they? They're not, Your Honor. Why isn't it the same thing with the dog? This dog was brought right up right up to the uh to the door of the house.

Donald G. Garre 3:47

Your Honor, first of all, I think that the As this c case comes to the court, the police were lawfully present at the front door. That was established by the courts below, and we don't think that they've challenged it here. That's at least true with respect to the police officer. The police officer could go up to the front door and knock and detect the smell of m marijuana, just like Officer Pedraha did.