Summary
The United States Supreme Court held that police officers conducted a Fourth Amendment search when they brought a trained drug-sniffing dog onto the curtilage of a home to investigate for narcotics. The Court affirmed suppression of the resulting evidence because the officers physically intruded on a constitutionally protected area for a purpose exceeding any implied license to approach the home.
Holdings
- The government conducted a Fourth Amendment search when officers physically entered the home's curtilage, including the front porch, with a trained narcotics-detection dog to investigate the home's contents.
- The Court did not need to decide whether the canine investigation violated Jardines' reasonable expectation of privacy under Katz because the physical intrusion into the constitutionally protected curtilage independently established that a search occurred.
Questions Presented
- Whether bringing a trained narcotics-detection dog onto the front porch of a home to investigate the home's contents constitutes a search under the Fourth Amendment.
Disposition
affirmed
Cases Cited (20)
- United States v. Jones, 565 U.S. 400 (2012)(followed)
- Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967)(followed)
- Oliver v. United States, 466 U.S. 170 (1984)(followed)
- Silverman v. United States, 365 U.S. 505 (1961)(followed)
- California v. Ciraolo, 476 U.S. 207 (1986)(distinguished)
- Entick v. Carrington, 2 Wils. K.B. 275, 95 Eng. Rep. 807 (K.B. 1765)(followed)
- McKee v. Gratz, 260 U.S. 127 (1922)(followed)
- Breard v. Alexandria, 341 U.S. 622 (1951)(followed)
- Kentucky v. King, 563 U.S. 452 (2011)(distinguished)
- United States v. Place, 462 U.S. 696 (1983)(distinguished)
Showing top 10 of 20.
Cited In (0)
No citing cases on record yet.
Court Document
Open PDFLoading document…