Jardines v. State

Because the majority’s decision violates binding United States Supreme Court precedent, I respectfully dissent.

Despite the majority’s focus upon multiple officers and the supposed time involved in surveillance and in execution of the search warrant,12 it is undisputed that one dog and two officers were lawfully and briefly present near the front door of Jar-dines’ residence when the dog sniff at issue in this case took place. And despite statements about privacy interests in items and odors within and escaping from a home,13 the United States Supreme Court has ruled that there are no…