Detective William Pedraja of the Miami Dade Police Department received a Crime Stoppers unverified tip that one of the tipper’s neighbors, Joelis Jardines, was growing marijuana in his house. Detective Pedraja and Detective Bartelt and his drug detection dog, Franky, went to Jardines’s home. There were no cars in the driveway, and the window blinds were closed. The two detectives and Franky went onto Jardines’s porch. Franky sniffed the base of the front door and sat, alerting the detectives of the smell of drugs. Based on this investigation, the detectives obtained a search warrant to search Jardines’s home. The search revealed marijuana plants. Jardines was arrested for the crime of trafficking in marijuana. At trial, Jardines made a motion to suppress the marijuana plants as evidence on the grounds that the detectives and Franky’s investigation was an unreasonable search in violation of the Fourth Amendment to the U. S. Constitution. The Florida trial court and the Florida Supreme Court held that there was an unreasonable search and suppressed the evidence. The case was appealed to the U. S. Supreme Court. Was the canine investigation an unreasonable search? Is it ethical for a defendant to assert the Fourth Amendment to suppress evidence when he knows he is guilty of the crime charged? Florida v. Jardines, 133 S. Ct. 1409, 2013 U. S. Lexis 2542 (Supreme Court of the United States, 2013)