Justice Scalia’s Affirmation, Essay Example

In the Supreme Court case of Joelis Jardines vs. The State of Florida, Justice Antonin Scalia wrote the majority opinion in favor of Joelis Jardines on the merit of the Fourth Amendment’s protection against unreasonable search and seizures. In the case, a police officer with narcotics sniffing dog approached a house, and based on the positive “sniff” the dog gave upon approaching the porch, obtained a warrant and found marijuana plants.

Scalia cited the Fourth Amendment, saying that although the smell of marijuana to a trained officer is probable cause for a warrant, the dog’s “sniff” constituted a search that was illegal. The Fourth Amendment allows for any citizen, police officer or otherwise to approach a home for the purposes of speaking to the owner or resident. As far as Scalia was concerned, the police officer was trespassing, having no reason to do anything other than approach the door. The instincts of a police officer has been proven and established before in “Miranda” cases, and should the officer had approached and seen and or smelled anything to do with narcotics, this warrant would have been correct. The dog is what made the difference, as an invasion of privacy case.

It is interesting to note that the concurring opinion was not based on the notion of privacy. The other four Justices took the opinion of Justice Kagan; though they agreed the Fourth Amendment was in question, they focused on the property aspect. They found the plaintiff’s right of property infringed upon, and therefore also found the search warrantless.

This is a correct and right interpretation of the Fourth Amendment. Justice Scalia, as well as Kagan and the concurring Justices were strict to Constitutional principles in this drug case–historically not very well received in the Supreme Court. The narcotics dog is an extension of the police officer’s right to search, and therefore should not ever be the complete basis of probable cause warrants. For example, radar guns are calibrated, as are “red-light cameras”. How does one calibrate a dog?

Found in the other way, the implications of this case are very far-reaching with regards to civil liberties.

Justice Alito’s Dissent

Justice Samuel Alito, joined by Chief Justice John Roberts, Justice Kennedy, and Justice Breyer, dissented from the majority in the case of Joelis Jardines vs. The State of Florida. Interestingly enough, he too wrote his opinion on the basis of the Fourth Amendment.

Alito, in his dissent, wrote that he believed the majority’s interpretation of the police officer’s right to approach the home was too narrow. The worst part of this dissent, and perhaps the most frightening, is his dissent had little to do with the dog at all, and more with actually trying to broaden the scope of a police officer’s right to obtain evidence, and subsequently warrants.

The dissent stated that the “public license” to approach a front door is really the issue. Again, it is allowed for any public or private individual to approach a front door with the intention of speaking to who lives there. Justice Alito stated that it is not even a Fourth Amendment violation for an officer to collect warrantless evidence on private property. Alito also explicitly mentions the lack of a clear and concise argument regarding the issue of the “sniff”, further solidifying his own decision.

Justice Alito also stated that the understood common-law definition of trespassing does not apply in any way to any particular group of people. Therefore, this proposal would give law enforcement ways around the Fourth Amendment. This common-law definition is an interesting twist to Alito–perhaps calling political motivations into question–in this way he is broadening the scope of government, against the trend of his ideology. Therefore, this proposal would give law enforcement ways around the Fourth Amendment.

Overall, the implications of Justice Alito’s opinion is nether consistent with his beliefs, nor good for civil rights. Alito’s dissent was frighteningly similar to the “Big Brother” described in Orwell’s 1984.