Whether a dog sniff at the front door of a suspected grow house by a trained narcotics detection dog is a Fourth Amendment search requiring probable cause?
Florida supreme court decision, State v. Jardines (4/14/11)
Coverage by Lyle Denniston, Orin Kerr (“fun stuff for Fourth Amendment nerds”), Kent Scheidegger (“This is solid police work”), Mike Sacks (w/nice shots of Franky), Sam Cooke, Frankie and Johnny (just because, but if you need a reason: it’s a bye week).
Wisconsin caselaw takes a, well, dogmatic view that a dog sniff isn’t a “search,” within the meaning of the fourth amendment. The outcome of this cert grant won’t affect that result with respect to cars – there, the battle will continue to to be fought on the basis for the (continuing) detention, e.g., State v. Salonen, 2011 WI App 157 – but has the potential to impact residential searches. Lower court holding: “probable cause, not reasonable suspicion, is the proper evidentiary showing of wrongdoing that the government must make prior to conducting a dog ‘sniff test’ at a private residence.” Florida’s cert petition (p. 13) explicitly seeks a holding “that a dog sniff of a house is not a search.” (House. Car. What’s the difference, anyway.)