Put IRAC in the Right Order

Put each card below into its box: Issue, Rule, Explanation, Analysis, Conclusion. Like CREAC (which begins with a Conclusion), IRAC includes an Explanation of the Rule → so think IR(E)AC. Can you spot all five essential parts? When done, click Check Order. On phones, tap a card, then tap a box.

1. The issue is whether a drug-sniffing dog’s search on a homeowner’s porch to check for drugs violates the Fourth Amendment.
2. The Fourth Amendment provides in relevant part that the “right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated.”
3. The Kyllo Court held that police officers conducted a search when they used a thermal-imaging device to detect heat emanating from a private home, even though they committed no trespass. Highlighting the bright line at the entrance to the house, the Court said: “Where, as here, the Government uses a device that is not in general public use, to explore details of the home that would previously have been unknowable without physical intrusion, the surveillance is a ‘search’ and is presumptively unreasonable without a warrant.”
4. That bright-line rule from Kyllo governs this case: The officers conducted a search because they used a device not in general public use—a trained drug-detection dog—to explore details of the home that would otherwise be unknowable without entering the premises.
5. A drug-sniffing dog’s search on a homeowner’s porch violates the Fourth Amendment because it exceeds a homeowner’s ordinary invitation to visitors.