Richie Warren (1) in the article Supreme Court to Consider How and When Police Can Use Drug sniffing dogs defined invasion of privacy as the right of a person to keep his or her life private and free from the difference of others. Under the fourth amendment, the invasion of privacy includes the police searching a person’s building without a warrant. During this search the police often use varied techniques including the sniff dogs as illustrated in Joelis' case. Thus the use of sniff dogs during search is not a violation of one’s property rights.
Keeping watch using sniff dogs like the police did in Jardines' home was not a violation of privacy. Following the earlier tip off, there were reasonable grounds for using sniff dog. In this case the police didn’t just walk to the house and decide to search it hoping to find drugs there. The officer and his dog were there legally thus entitled to request access to the building and investigate the earlier tip of suspected drug activity. For one to obtain such warrant there has to be a reason for this. A dog sniff is frequently the first action that gives clue to require obtaining a search warrant. In fact the United States Supreme Court has held that a sniff of dissenter of luggage or building will not implicate the fourth amendment. This applies directly in Jardines’ case since the dog had to sniff the luggage of the suspected drug in the building where it was placed, thus the police didn’t not violate Jardines’ privacy.
Marijuana is classified as a contraband item owing to its nature, thus it shouldn’t be illegally possessed or sold. Therefore, no one has got a legitimate privacy interest in contraband materials like marijuana. In fact possessing such a material is an offense according to the laws of the United States. Thus there was no violation of privacy on Jardines’ case when the sniffing was done by the dog. In fact the dog led the police to the exact place in the house where marijuana was grown.
After finding marijuana the police search was finished. However prolonging the search beyond its original purpose is a violation of one’s privacy. Indeed the police extended his search in Jardines’ home and found electricity taps. Jardines’ tapping electricity is a punishable act which should be persecuted by the law. But since the policy didn’t have any suspicion regarding the tapping of electricity, he violated Jardines’ privacy by extending his search. In addition, the police officers who stopped Mr. Caballes for a warning ticket but ended up arresting him for possessing marijuana violated Mr. Cabelles privacy. It is true that possessing marijuana is offense which is punishable by the law, but the police had no suspicion that Mr. Cabelles had marijuana in his car. Thus arresting him for possessing marijuana and not warning ticket was illegitimate and unconstitutional.
The court argues that an alert by a trained dog is a very strong basis for police to carry out search on buildings and luggage. This is because the trained dog can identify odors and direct the search to the odor source. Therefore, the police was justified to use the sniff dog to find out where the marijuana was placed. However, any other findings were illegally obtained and unlawful. Indeed, the additional finding was a violation of Jardines privacy.
Work Cited
Richey, Warren. “Supreme Court to Consider How and When Police Can Use Drug-Sniffing Dogs.” The Christian Science Monitor, O6 Jan. 2012. Web. 07 Nov. 2012. http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Justice/2012/1030/Supreme-Court-to-consider-how-and-when-police-can-use-drug-sniffing-dogs
