Missouri Lawyers Media Missouri legal news and public notices
Defendant appealed the denial of his suppression motion and request for a Franks hearing. A police canine reported positively on defendant’s apartment door and officers obtained a search warrant. However, defendant moved to a new unit in the complex before police could execute the warrant. Police conducted a new canine search with management’s permission and obtained another search warrant. Upon executing the warrant, officers read defendant his Miranda rights and questioned him. Defendant moved to suppress the physical evidence and his statements. The district court concluded that, although the canine sniffs were conducted within the curtilage of defendant’s apartments, the search was valid under the good faith exception.
Where the canine sniffs occurred before the court expressly ruled that the curtilage rules applied to apartment doors in common hallways, the officers were entitled to rely on the search warrants in a good faith belief that the supporting canine searches were valid.
Kelly, J., concurring: “I would conclude that the drug dog sniffs of Hines’s apartment were a violation of his Fourth Amendment rights. I otherwise concur in the court’s opinion.”
Grasz, J., concurring: “I write separately to highlight the fact that, in my view, the district court’s determination that the warrantless K9 sniff of the curtilage of Hines’s residence was an illegal search is not squarely before the court in this appeal. By affirming the district court’s ultimate denial of the motion to suppress under the Leon good faith exception, this court in no way suggests the district court’s determination regarding the unconstitutionality of the search was incorrect.”
Judgment is affirmed.
U.S. v. Hines (MLW No. 79570/Case No. 21-2477 – 12 pages) (U.S. Court of Appeals, 8th Circuit, Smith, J.) Appealed from U.S. District Court, Southern District of Iowa, Rose, J. (Andrea D. Jaeger, of Davenport, IA for appellant) (Andrew H. Kahl, AUSA, of Des Moines, IA for appellee)
