In Florida v. Jardines, which statement is correct about K9 deployment at a residence?

In Florida v. Jardines, which statement is correct about K9 deployment at a residence?

• A. K9 Cannot go to the door of the home
• B. K9 May enter the home
• C. K9 Can go to the door of the home
• D. K9 Can search the interior without a warrant

Answer: (A)

Bringing a drug-sniffing dog to the threshold of a home triggers Fourth Amendment privacy protections. The area immediately around a residence—the curtilage, including the front porch—is protected because people have a reasonable expectation of privacy there. The dog’s sniff can reveal information about what’s inside the home that police can’t obtain without intruding on that privacy. In Florida v. Jardines, the Supreme Court held that using a drug-sniffing dog on the front porch to sniff around the home is a search and requires probable cause and a warrant. So, a K9 cannot go to the door of the home to sniff without that legal authorization.

Bringing a drug-sniffing dog to the threshold of a home triggers Fourth Amendment privacy protections. The area immediately around a residence—the curtilage, including the front porch—is protected because people have a reasonable expectation of privacy there. The dog’s sniff can reveal information about what’s inside the home that police can’t obtain without intruding on that privacy. In Florida v. Jardines, the Supreme Court held that using a drug-sniffing dog on the front porch to sniff around the home is a search and requires probable cause and a warrant. So, a K9 cannot go to the door of the home to sniff without that legal authorization.