United States v. Lonnie Whitaker
2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 6655, 820 F.3d 849, 2016 WL 1426484 (2016)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The use of a trained drug-sniffing dog at an apartment's door within a locked common hallway constitutes a search under the Fourth Amendment because it employs a sense-enhancing device not in general public use to obtain information from inside the home, thus violating the resident's reasonable expectation of privacy.
Facts:
- A confidential informant told Dane County Sheriffs Deputy Joel Wagner that an individual named 'Javarí' was selling drugs from Apartment 204 and drove a black Cadillac Escalade.
- Wagner met with the property manager, who confirmed Apartment 204 was leased to Ruthie Whitaker and showed Wagner a black Cadillac Escalade in the apartment's assigned parking stall.
- Over a month later, the informant texted Wagner, stating that the drug dealer was back in town at the apartment with a large quantity of heroin.
- After receiving another anonymous tip, Wagner received consent from the property manager to conduct a K9 search of the building.
- Wagner and Deputy Jay O’Neil brought a drug-sniffing dog, 'Hunter,' into the locked, shared hallway on the building's second floor.
- O'Neil walked Hunter through the hallway, where the dog first alerted to the door of Apartment 208.
- After being informed that 208 was not the target, O'Neil conducted a secondary sniff, and Hunter then alerted to the door of Whitaker's apartment, 204.
Procedural Posture:
- Whitaker was charged with drug and firearm crimes in U.S. District Court.
- Whitaker filed a pretrial motion to suppress the evidence found in his apartment, arguing the dog sniff was an unconstitutional search.
- A magistrate judge issued a Report and Recommendation that Whitaker's motions be denied.
- The district court adopted the magistrate's recommendation and denied the motion to suppress.
- Whitaker entered a conditional guilty plea, which preserved his right to appeal the district court's denial of his motion.
- Whitaker, as the appellant, appealed the district court's ruling to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the use of a trained drug-sniffing dog at the door of an apartment in a locked common hallway to detect the presence of drugs inside constitute a search under the Fourth Amendment?
Opinions:
Majority - Darrah, District Judge
Yes. The use of a drug-sniffing dog at the door of an apartment constitutes a Fourth Amendment search. While the Supreme Court's decision in Florida v. Jardines was based on physical trespass into a home's curtilage, the reasoning from Kyllo v. United States is more applicable here and controls the outcome. Kyllo held that using a device not in general public use to explore details of a home that would otherwise be unknowable without physical intrusion is a search. A trained drug dog is a 'super-sensitive instrument' or a sophisticated sensing device not available to the general public, and it was used here to detect information from inside Whitaker's home. Although a tenant does not have a complete expectation of privacy in a common hallway, they retain a reasonable expectation of privacy against the police using sense-enhancing devices to snoop into their apartment. To distinguish between the protections afforded to single-family homes and apartments would draw arbitrary lines and apportion Fourth Amendment rights based on socioeconomic status.
Analysis:
This decision significantly extends the Fourth Amendment protections of the home, as articulated in Florida v. Jardines, from single-family houses to multi-unit apartment buildings. By grounding its reasoning in Kyllo's reasonable expectation of privacy standard rather than Jardines' trespass doctrine, the court prevents a potential loophole where police could conduct warrantless dog sniffs in common areas not considered traditional 'curtilage'. This ruling establishes a key precedent within the Seventh Circuit, affirming that the sanctity of the home is not diminished by the type of dwelling and requiring law enforcement to obtain a warrant before using drug dogs to investigate the contents of an apartment from a common hallway.
