Oprisko v. Dir. of the Dep't of Corr., 795 S.E.2d 739

Police investigating a drug complaint approached Oprisko’s home on July 9, 2007 with a drug-detection dog (Sam) to conduct a "knock and talk."
The dog alerted near the front porch/door; officers then obtained a search warrant (warrant and affidavit not in record) and seized 51 marijuana plants from the attic.
Oprisko moved to suppress, arguing the canine sniff/entry onto the curtilage exceeded implied consent; the trial court denied suppression, finding implied consent and faded "No Trespassing" signs.
Oprisko was convicted of possession with intent to distribute; his conviction became final on August 23, 2012 after appeals and denial of cert.
After the Supreme Court decided Florida v. Jardines (Mar. 26, 2013), Oprisko filed habeas seeking retroactive application of Jardines and a plenary hearing; the habeas court dismissed the petition as Jardines announced a new rule and denied a hearing.
The Virginia Supreme Court affirmed, holding Jardines was a new rule not retroactive and that no evidentiary hearing was required because retroactivity was a pure legal question.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Florida v. Jardines applies retroactively to convictions final before its announcement	Oprisko: Jardines follows existing property-rights precedent (e.g., Jones) and therefore is not a "new" rule; it should apply on collateral review	Director: Jardines announced a new constitutional rule and thus does not apply to convictions already final under Teague	Court: Jardines announced a new rule not dictated by prior precedent and is not retroactive to convictions final before March 26, 2013
Whether habeas court abused discretion by denying a plenary evidentiary hearing	Oprisko: factual disputes (e.g., whether the warrant relied solely on the canine sniff) required an evidentiary hearing	Director: Retroactivity is a pure legal question; factual proof about the warrant is irrelevant to retroactivity	Court: Denial not an abuse of discretion because the claim was a pure question of law resolvable on the record

Florida v. Jardines, 569 U.S. 1 (2013) (use of a drug-sniffing dog on a home’s porch is a Fourth Amendment search under a property-rights analysis)
Teague v. Lane, 489 U.S. 288 (1989) (new rules of criminal procedure generally not retroactive on collateral review)
Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967) (Fourth Amendment protects reasonable expectations of privacy)
United States v. Jones, 565 U.S. 400 (2012) (placing a GPS tracker on a vehicle is a search; property-based Fourth Amendment analysis remains relevant)
Illinois v. Caballes, 543 U.S. 406 (2005) (canine sniff at a lawful traffic stop not a search when it reveals only presence of contraband)
United States v. Place, 462 U.S. 696 (1983) (canine sniff of luggage is "sui generis" and not a search because it reveals only contraband)
Mueller v. Murray, 252 Va. 356 (1996) (Virginia application of Teague retroactivity framework)