Legal Opinion · Dissent

State v. Edstrom

Supreme Court of Minnesota

Decided August 15, 2018No. A16-1382Published

1Dissent

LILLEHAUG, Justice (dissenting).

In Florida v. Jardines , the United States Supreme Court held that a narcotics-dog sniff at the door of a single-family residence was a "search" in violation of the Fourth Amendment's warrant requirement. 569 U.S. 1, 11-12, 133 S.Ct. 1409, 185 L.Ed.2d 495 (2013). This is so because the area "immediately surrounding and associated with the home-what our cases call the curtilage-[is] part of the home itself for Fourth Amendment purposes." Id. at 6, 133 S.Ct. 1409 (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted).

Today, the court reads out of Jardines the area…

2Cases cited13 opinions

  1. Oliver v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1984
  2. Florida v. JardinesSupreme Court of the United States · 2013
  3. Silverman v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1961
  4. United States v. DunnSupreme Court of the United States · 1987
  5. Collins v. VirginiaSupreme Court of the United States · 2018

8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API