Lindsey v. State, 127 A.3d 627

Background

Baltimore City officer Jai Etwaroo applied for a warrant to search Shaun Lindsey’s apartment based largely on two confidential informants and information from Anthony "Apple" Hall; a K-9 alerted near Lindsey’s apartment door and officers then executed the warrant and found large quantities of heroin and paraphernalia.
Hall had been arrested earlier with heroin and cash; the affidavit recounted Hall’s statements implicating Lindsey and linked Lindsey to a Mercedes and an apartment at 10 Queensbridge Court, Apt. K.
Lindsey moved to suppress, arguing the affidavit contained misleading and uncorroborated informant statements and that a K-9 sniff on the hallway outside his door violated his Fourth Amendment rights (curtilage/expectation of privacy).
A two-day suppression hearing was held; the circuit court credited Officer Etwaroo over Hall and denied the motion to suppress. Lindsey pled conditional guilty to possession with intent to distribute and appealed.
The Court of Special Appeals reviewed whether the affidavit supplied a substantial basis for probable cause, whether the K-9 sniff implicated curtilage/privacy, and whether any unlawfully obtained information required excision.

Issues

Issue	Lindsey's Argument	State's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of affidavit to support warrant	Affidavit relied on uncorroborated, unreliable informant statements and contained misleading omissions	Informants (esp. Informant #1) were reliable; many details were corroborated by investigation and officer observations	Affidavit provided a substantial basis for probable cause under the totality of circumstances; warrant affirmed
Effect of alleged false/misleading statements (Franks)	Omissions/misstatements (e.g., inducement of Hall, number of informants) taint probable cause	Circuit court found officer credible and Hall’s recantation not credible; any imperfections immaterial	Court accepted circuit judge’s credibility findings and declined to excise Hall’s information; Franks claim not sustained
Admissibility of K-9 alert if sniff was on curtilage	K-9 sniff occurred on the apartment hallway/door (curtilage), so sniff was an unlawful physical intrusion	Hallway was a common area not within curtilage; entry method into building unknown; tenants lack expectation of privacy in common halls	Area outside apartment door was not curtilage/common area; Lindsey had no reasonable expectation of privacy there; K-9 alert not excluded on that ground
Good-faith / Leon reliance on warrant	Even if some evidence were unlawfully obtained, officer’s reliance was not reasonable due to affidavit defects	Officer reasonably relied on the warrant; affidavit was not "bare bones" and judge not misled	Good-faith exception applies; no basis to suppress on Leon/Patterson grounds

Key Cases Cited

State v. Lee, 330 Md. 320 (describing limitations of second-hand anonymous tips and need to show informant reliability)
Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213 (totality-of-the-circumstances test for informant tips and probable cause)
Florida v. Jardines, 133 S. Ct. 1409 (police physical intrusion onto home/curtilage for K-9 sniff is a Fourth Amendment search)
United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 (good-faith exception to exclusionary rule)
Patterson v. State, 401 Md. 76 (application of Leon good-faith limits in Maryland)
United States v. Dunn, 480 U.S. 294 (four-factor test for defining curtilage)
McDonald v. United States, 335 U.S. 451 (limits on intrusions through common areas and unlawful entry into apartment buildings)
Bailey v. State, 412 Md. 349 (contextual evaluation of otherwise innocent conduct in establishing probable cause)
Coley v. State, 145 Md. App. 502 (crediting reliable informant and corroboration in supporting probable cause)

JUDGMENT: Affirmed. Costs to be paid by appellant.