We use both our own and third-party cookies for statistical purposes and to improve our services. If you continue to browse, we consider that you accept the use of these.
  • Celebrating 20 Years of Training Excellence 2004-2024

Walking Onto Private Property

Florida v. Jardines 2013 W.L. 1196577

Did the Supreme Court Limit an Officer’s ability to go to the front door of a private residence?

Yes, in some circumstances.

Readers of the Training Bulletin will remember the USSC’s recent decision in Jones that held placing a GPS device on a suspect’s car was a 4th Amendment violation and thus necessitated the acquisition of a warrant prior to putting the GPS monitor on a vehicle. The decision was based on what the Supreme Court held to be the trespass theory of 4th Amendment jurisprudence. In short, if an officer trespasses on personal property the 4th Amendment is violated. In Florida v. Jardines, the Court extended the trespass theory (while renaming it “intrusion”) to private property.


A Miami officer got an anonymous tip that Jardines was growing marijuana in his house. So the officer and a K9 handler walked a dope sniffing dog up to the front porch of the residence in question. While at the front porch the dog reacted to the base of the front door. The K9 handler explained that the dog is trained to alert at the strongest odor point. The officers were at the front door for no more than two minutes. The Officers then sought and obtained a search warrant for the residence based on the K9 alert. The search resulted in the seizure of marijuana, the cultivation and trafficking of which Jardines was convicted. The defendant moved to suppress the evidence. The Florida Supreme Court agreed, and the State of Florida appealed the suppression of the marijuana to the USSC.



The court held that anytime an officer seeks to gather information by entering the front yard or the curtilage of the home that entry is a search. That is now the law of the land.

The only question in this case then was whether there was some exception. Historically, homeowners give implied consent to the public, and police officers, to approach the front door. The court affirmed that historic understanding, provided that officers do no more than “the nation’s Girl Scouts and trick-or-treaters” do when they approach a front door—knock on the door, wait briefly to be received, and if not, leave. The court held that residents do not consent to police officers lingering on the front step with an investigative tool such as a K9.


There are a few things officers should be mindful of that come from this decision. When officers are conducting knock and talks, this decision will rule illegal anything done at the front door beyond knocking and waiting to be invited to stay. For instance, if after knocking and no one comes to the door—-you linger, look through windows, step off the porch, go in areas that are not normally used to get to the front door, or if the resident comes to the door and they say they don’t want to talk to you and you stay at the door and try to engage them, each of those activities may get any resulting evidence suppressed.

The bottom line result here is stay on the walkways and stay on the porch. You can knock, wait for a response and then have to leave and you may not bring any investigative tool to the door with you nor should you linger at the door.


  • Incredible training with amazing real world instruction. I have been taking law enforcement classes for over 30 years and by far this is the best presented and most useful.

    —Det. Brian Dale, Portland Police Bureau
  • Your training gave me the confidence and tools to interview the suspect for over 5 hours and to bring a closure to the case.

    —Daniel Phelan, San Jose Police Department
  • Instructional style is engaging and highly effective.

    —George Laing, Fire Prevention Captain, Investigator
  • I will continue to use and pass on this information because I really believe in the instructors and their approach.

    —Kimberly Meyer, Washoe County Sheriff's Department
  • I highly recommend this training for any Probation staff who have the necessity to interview/interrogate individuals for investigation purposes.

    —R. Bret Fidler, Santa Clara County Probation Department
  • This training by far has been the most informative and most effective I've attended. The instructors engaged the students in a manner that made me want to speak my opinion, ask questions, and participate.

    —Julio Ibarra, Merced County Sheriff’s Office
  • This training provided the useful tools necessary for assessing the veracity of a suspected child abuser, which goes a long way in helping to protect children.

    —Sunny Burgan, MSSW, LCSW, Social Work Supervisor, Santa Clara County DFCS
  • This was, by far and away the best training I have received in 15 plus years of Law Enforcement. The instructors are experienced, engaging, articulate, and very entertaining. I will be recommending this training to multiple agencies.

    —Mark Paynter, Oregon DOC
  • The information presented was highly relevant to my job and was presented in a manner that was organized and very easy to digest.

    —Michael McGarvey, California State Prison, San Quentin
  • It not often that you go to a training that you really, really want to pay attention to. Because of the high quality information and style of presentation, I knew that if I looked away I was going to miss out.

    —Quinten Graves, Oregon State Police
  • Your training has made the greatest and most direct impact on my assignment of any training class that I've taken.

    —Ken Gelskey, National City Police Department
  • This was, by far, one of the most useful training classes I've attended since becoming an investigator.

    —Steven Aiello, Antioch Police Department
  • Effective teaching teams! The presentation of the material was consistently interesting, and intelligent without being too intellectualized.

    —Michele Keller, Deputy Probation Officer, County of Alameda