SKIP TO CONTENT
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.

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.

FACTS

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.

 

HOLDING

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.

ISSUES

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.

 

  • Your instructional style is engaging and your tag-team style is highly effective.

    —George Laing, Fire Prevention Captain, Investigator
  • You two are an effective teaching team, and your presentation of the material was consistently interesting, and intelligent without being too intellectualized.

    —Michele Keller, Deputy Probation Officer, County of Alameda
  • Your class 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
  • 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
  • Your class 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
  • 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
  • The information that they have presented is highly relevant to my job, and was presented in a manner that was highly organized and very easy to digest.

    —Michael McGarvey, California State Prison, San Quentin
  • This was, by far, one of the most useful classes I've attended since becoming an investigator.

    —Steven Aiello, Antioch Police Department
  • Thank you for allowing me the opportunity to attend the Interview and Interrogation training presented by Paul Francois and Enrique Garcia.

    —Todd Almason, Santa Clara County District Attorney's Office
  • ...Provides 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