The Dog Days of Fourth Amendment Jurisprudence

Kit Kinports

Penn State Law

July 1, 2013

Northwestern University Law Review Colloquy, Vol. 108
Penn State Law Research Paper No. 34-2013

This Article discusses Florida v. Harris and Florida v. Jardines, the two Fourth Amendment drug dog opinions issued by the Supreme Court earlier this year. Together the cases hold that a narcotics detection dog effects a “search” when it intrudes on a constitutionally protected area in order to collect evidence, but that the dog’s positive alert is generally sufficient to support a finding of probable cause. The piece argues that both cases essentially generate a bright-line rule, thereby deviating from precedent that favored a more amorphous standard considering all the surrounding circumstances. Like many purportedly clear rules, the ones flowing from the drug dog decisions lack precision and therefore create an inherent risk of overinclusion or underinclusion. Here, the Article concludes, Harris exhibits overconfidence in the accuracy of drug dog alerts, while Jardines threatens to underprotect less privileged socio-economic classes.

Number of Pages in PDF File: 16

Keywords: Fourth Amendment, drug dogs

Accepted Paper Series

Download This Paper

Date posted: July 17, 2013 ; Last revised: September 13, 2013

Suggested Citation

Kinports, Kit, The Dog Days of Fourth Amendment Jurisprudence (July 1, 2013). Northwestern University Law Review Colloquy, Vol. 108; Penn State Law Research Paper No. 34-2013. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2293937

Contact Information

Kit Kinports (Contact Author)
Penn State Law ( email )
University Park, PA 16802
Feedback to SSRN

Paper statistics
Abstract Views: 181
Downloads: 56
Download Rank: 221,161

© 2014 Social Science Electronic Publishing, Inc. All Rights Reserved.  FAQ   Terms of Use   Privacy Policy   Copyright   Contact Us
This page was processed by apollo5 in 0.266 seconds