United States v. Jardines In 2006, Detective William Pedraja of the Miami-Dade Police Department received an unverified tip that marijuana was being grown in the home of respondent Joelis Jardines. One month later, the Department and the Drug Enforcement Administration sent a joint surveillance team to Jardines home. Detective Pedraja was part of that team. He watched the home for fifteen minutes and saw no vehicles in the driveway or activity around the home, and could not see inside because the blinds were drawn. Detective Pedraja then approached Jardines home accompanied by Detective Douglas Bartelt, a trained canine handler who had just arrived at the scene with his drug-sniffing dog. The dog was trained to detect the scent of marijuana, cocaine, heroin, and several other drugs, indicating the presence of any of these substances through particular behavioral changes recognizable by his handler. Detective Bartelt had the dog on a six-foot leash, owing in part to the dogs wild nature and tendency to dart around erratically while searching. As the dog approached Jardines front porch, he apparently sensed one of the odors he had been trained to detect, and began energetically exploring the area for the strongest point source of that odor. As Detective Bartelt explained, the dog began tracking that airborne odor by ... tracking back and forth, engaging in what is called bracketing, back and forth, back and forth. Detective Bartelt gave the dog the full six feet of the leash plus whatever safe distance he could give him to do thishe testified that he needed to give the dog as much distance as I can. And Detective Pedraja stood back while this was occurring, so that he would not get knocked over when the dog was spinning around trying to find the source. After sniffing the base of the front door, the dog sat, which is the trained behavior upon discovering the odors strongest point. Detective Bartelt then pulled the dog away from the door and returned to his vehicle. He left the scene after informing Detective Pedraja that there had been a positive alert for narcotics. Based on what he had learned at the home, Detective Pedraja applied for and received a warrant to search the residence. When the warrant was executed later that day, Jardines attempted to flee and was arrested the search revealed marijuana plants, and he was charged with trafficking in cannabis. At trial, Jardines moved to suppress the marijuana plants on the ground that the canine investigation was an unreasonable search. The trial court granted the motion, and the Florida Third District Court of Appeal reversed. On a petition for discretionary review, the Florida Supreme Court quashed the decision of the Third District Court of Appeal and approved the trial courts decision to suppress, holding (as relevant here) that the use of the trained narcotics dog to investigate Jardines home was a HYPERLINK http//www.law.cornell.edu/supct-cgi/get-constamendmentiv o subref Fourth Amendment search unsupported by probable cause, rendering invalid the warrant based upon information gathered in that search. 73 So. 3d 34 (2011). The court granted certiorari, limited to the question of whether the officers behavior was a search within the meaning of the HYPERLINK http//www.law.cornell.edu/supct-cgi/get-constamendmentiv o subref Fourth Amendment. BeforeFourth Amendment protection comes into play, police activity must actually be found to be a search in a legal sense.For example, if one puts the family trash out on the curb, police can inspect it without getting a warrant because the family has given up any expectation that the contents of the trash bags are private.But, if the trash is still in the can inside the house, perhaps in the kitchen, police could search it only if they got a warrant allowing them to do so that would be a search in a place that the homeowner considers to be private, and so does society in general. For another example, if one keeps drugs in the glove