Do Police Dogs of Search and Seizure Violate the Fourth Amendment? A person’s home is a place where the constitution protects the right to privacy and the freedom from unreasonable government invasion. The fourth amendment protects the people from the use of unconstitutional reason for having a search. Is police dogs gift of smelling for drugs outside of a house or any property owned by a citizen of the United States without probable cause for a search? Although many times police dogs are necessary for the issue, there could be times that the fourth amendment is violated during the search and seizure when sniffer dogs are used. In the 1983 case, United States V. Place the respondent was met a Friday but the drug enforcement agents on the…show more content… In the 2004 case of Illinois V. Caballes a drug dog alerted the police of marijuana in Roy Caballes car trunk. The Illinois court convicted Caballes of cannabis trafficking. Caballes appealed and argued the search violated his Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure. The conclusion for the case came to that Caballes’s Fourth Amendment rights were not violated. The constitution did not require the police to have a reasonable suspicion to use a drug detection dog on a car during legal traffic…show more content… No warrants shall be issued upon probable cause. Meaning, that we are protected by unreasonable searches and seizures by the government such as the police.In order for a police officer to search a person they must contain a search warrant given to them. Florida V. Jardines (2013) police officials received a clue that Jardines home was being used to grow Marijuana. The Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) officers conducted a warrantless watch of Jardines home. During the watch a drug detection dog sniffed the outside of the home and alerted to the smell of Marijuana at the front door. Based on the positive alert of the search dog the police officers were granted a search warrant. The search confirmed the Jardines house was being used for the growth of Marijuana.
Jardines successfully moved to defeat evidence of the dog sniff outside his home by arguing that the sniff constituted an unreasonable search under the Fourth Amendment. The Florida Supreme Court held that the canine was not a legal search under the Fourth Amendment. (Oyez