Supreme Court hears arguments on the the privacy of your home

Clearwater Injury Law | Mark Perenich

LAw (16)

Today the United States Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in the case of Florida v. Jardines, the primary issue at stake in this case is the privacy of our homes.  In short, the court will decide whether walking a drug sniffing dog up to a suspect’s home (or any home without probable cause) violates the Constitution.  While this case has more nuances than I will go into the gist of it goes like this :

  • The defendant (Jardines) was growing marijuana inside his home
  • The police were given an anonymous tip that the defendant was growing marijuana in his home.
  • The police walked their dog (Frankie) up to the home, and he alerted them that there was in fact marijuana in the home.

Intuitively one may think “there is nothing wrong with this”, most would agree with that.  However, your house is your castle, the Supreme Court has done a lot to protect our homes to give society the amount of privacy our Constitution calls for.  By allowing police to  bring drug sniffing dogs up to our homes there is always a chance for a false-positive alert (by the dog), resulting in a 4th amendment violation.

If  you would to know more, or you would like for me to explain something further, feel free to leave a comment here  or got to my facebook https://www.facebook.com/MarkPerenichEsq

https://plus.google.com/109316988357499375166/posts

Here is the article

Supreme Court is asked to be skeptical of drug-sniffing dogs

By Robert Barnes, Published: October 30

NEW SMYRNA BEACH, Fla. — Aldo the German shepherd and Franky the chocolate Lab are drug-detecting dogs who have been retired to opposite ends of the ultimate retiree state.

But their work is still being evaluated, and on Wednesday it will be before the Supreme Court. The justices must decide whether man’s best friend is an honest broker as blind to prejudice as Lady Justice, or as prone as the rest of us to a bad day at the office or the ma­nipu­la­tion of our partners.

The Supreme Court in the past has tended to agree with the first view. Justice John Paul Stevens, now retired, wrote for the court in a 2005 case that a drug-sniffing dog reveals “no information other than the location of a substance that no individual has any right to possess.”

But the two cases on the docket present an aggressive challenge to the notion that a dog’s “alert” to the presence of drugs is enough to legally justify a search of someone’s home or vehicle.

Florida v. Jardines asks whether it was constitutional for Miami-Dade County police, acting on a tip, to bring Franky to Joelis Jardines’s front door. Franky alerted to the smell of marijuana, the police used that to obtain a warrant, and Jardines was arrested on suspicion of turning his home into a “grow house.”

Florida v. Harris asks a more basic question of whether judges should be skeptical of Fido’s qualifications. It builds on research that shows a high rate of false alerts and cases of ma­nipu­la­tion by a dog’s handler.

Justice David H. Souter, also now retired, sounded the alarm about the reliability of police canines in his dissent in the 2005 case, writing that the “infallible dog .?.?. is a creation of legal fiction.”

The Florida Supreme Court went further last year in the Harris case when it threw out the evidence in a 2006 traffic stop in the Florida Panhandle that featured Aldo.

“Courts often accept the mythic dog with an almost superstitious faith,” Justice Barbara J. Pariente wrote. “The myth so completely has dominated the judicial psyche in those cases that the courts either assume the reliability of the sniff or address the question cursorily; the dog is the clear and consistent winner.”

The Florida court said that judges should look at the “totality of circumstances,” including a dog’s training and certification records, field performance, and evidence of the handler’s training and experience.

Bill Heiser, founder of Southern Coast K9, is helping to raise the next generation of Aldos and Frankys on 12 acres of sandy soil in central Florida. He agrees that training and handling are key.

It takes about four months — training four or five times a day — to produce a dog for law enforcement. The dogs at Southern Coast work for the attention of their handlers — “Mom” or “Dad,” Heiser calls them — and receive it and their toy only when they have properly alerted to the scent of the drugs they are taught to detect.

He demonstrates how a fox-red Lab named Rowdy races through a room filled with distractions and sticks his nose in identical boxes containing a tennis ball, his toy of choice. But he stops and sits only at the box that also contains dope — Heiser uses real drugs, obtained from law enforcement — and waits for his trainer’s praise.

If a dog is properly trained, Heiser said, a bag of McDonald’s fare won’t distract him, a female’s scent won’t delay him, a suspect’s looks won’t interest him.

“He doesn’t know he’s finding cocaine or heroin or marijuana or meth or crack cocaine,” Heiser said. “All he knows is ‘That odor means my toy’s there. And if I do what I’m supposed to do, what I’m trained to do, Mom gets involved or Dad gets involved.’ That’s what he works for, that love and attention.”

The state of Florida, backed by the Obama administration, said such training and certification should be enough for courts.

The kind of “novel, sniff-by-sniff records” the Florida Supreme Court would require would overburden law enforcement and “upend settled law across the nation,” the state said in a brief written by Gregory G. Garre, who served as solicitor general in the George W. Bush administration.

But the law professors, civil libertarians and criminal defense lawyers who support Clayton Harris, the man stopped by Aldo’s handler, Liberty County officer William Wheetley, say that Florida’s proposed standard is not enough.

For one thing, no national standard for certification exists. “There’s no such thing as a well-trained narcotics detection dog,” said Jeffrey Weiner, a criminal defense lawyer from Miami. “It means whatever a trial judge or appellate judge or Supreme Court justice wants it to mean.”

Glen Gifford, Harris’s attorney, told the justices in his brief that Aldo’s certification was out of date and that there was no real record of how he and Wheetley worked together. Aldo alerted to the scent of drugs on the handle of Harris’s vehicle, and a search found the ingredients for methamphetamine inside.

But in the tiny town of Bristol, that was not the only time Wheetley had pulled Harris over. And Aldo alerted to drugs that time, too, but a search came up empty.

That could simply mean that drugs had recently been in the truck but were now removed, or that they were expertly hidden.

But Gifford points to other research that says dogs can alert to other scents or simply have bad days.

And a study last year at the University of California at Davis — disputed by some in the dog-handling industry — was mentioned in several briefs. It indicated that handlers had much to do with when a dog alerted.

It brought together 18 K-9 teams and ran them through a test facility at which the handlers had been told that some targets had been marked and some had not.

Together, the teams racked up 225 false alerts. Only one team was perfect. It was the one that did not alert at all, because there were no drugs in the facility.

Read the entire article by clicking on the link below

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/decision2012/supreme-court-is-asked-to-be-skeptical-of-drug-sniffing-dogs/2012/10/30/5b181110-2125-11e2-8448-81b1ce7d6978_story.html

Tampa Injury law | Mark Perenich

The 54 million dollar verdict

Tampa injury lawyer Mark Perenich

This was a tough case for me, not just because of the difficulties involved, but because of the emotional gravity involved.  This was a case that shocked the entire Tampa Bay area, and destroyed Mr. Taylor’s family.

Here is the article:

By JOSÉ PATIÑO GIRONA | The Tampa Tribune
Published: July 16, 2012
Updated: July 17, 2012 – 11:41 AM

A Pinellas County jury awarded $54 million today to the 10-year-old daughter of a man who was killed by a former Jabil Circuit executive in 2008.

The jury awarded $50 million in punitive damages and $4 million in compensatory damages, said Mark H. Perenich, attorney for Gerald Taylor’s daughter, Francesca Anna Taylor.

Patrick Evans, the former Jabil Circuit vice president, was convicted last year of murdering Taylor and Evans’ estranged wife, Elizabeth, in December 2008. Taylor and Elizabeth Evans were in a relationship at the time of the murder.

Evans burst into his wife’s condominium in South Pasadena and found her with Taylor. Evans could be heard on the 911 tape telling Evans and Taylor to get on the bed in the master bedroom. He then shot them both.

Taylor was found in the master bedroom, lying on the floor; Elizabeth Evans was found on a patio in a sitting position, wedged between some furniture.

“This is a day for justice for Francesca,” Perenich said. “Francesca told the jury that her dad never let her down, and we couldn’t either.”

Watch the news report here http://www2.tbo.com/news/news/2012/jul/16/3/daughter-of-shooting-victim-awarded-54-million-ar-433436/\

Tampa Injury law