FRANKY THE DRUG SNIFFING DOG CASE GOING TO HIGH COURT

By the News Service of Florida

The U.S. Supreme Court will decide whether Franky the drug sniffing dog was violating the constitutional rights of a Miami drug dealer when he sniffed the guy's door without a warrant. At the request of Attorney General Pam Bondi, the high court decided to take the case to answer the question of whether police need probable cause to let a drug dog sniff at the door of a suspected marijuana grow house to comply with the Fourt Amendment's search and seizure protections. The defendant in the case, Joelis Jardines v. Florida, argued that the drug sniffing dog's nosing around amounted to a search that required a warrant. Police went to get a warrant after Franky smelled drugs, based in part on Franky's alert at the door. There are differing rulings on the issue: an Illinois court has ruled that a dog sniff – which is only going to turn up contraband, and not other things that might be considered a privacy invasion – isn't a the same as a search, a ruling that in this case was used by Florida's 3 rd District Court of Appeal. The state Supreme Court, however, reversed the 3 rd DCA, saying it was a search, based on a 2004 federal appeals court ruling. "The use by law enforcement of drug-sniffing dogs in detecting drugs and dangerous substances is essential in protecting all of us from the drugs and other chemical substances that exist in our communities,” Bondi said in a statement after the U.S. Supreme Court agreed Friday to take the case.  “We believe that law enforcement needs this critical, constitutionally authorized tool as part of its crime detection arsenal to ensure our communities are safe.  With a favorable Supreme Court decision on this matter, we can resolve this issue and continue to allow law enforcement use of this invaluable tool and stop the drug grow houses and other dangerous drug activities from creeping into our neighborhoods.”