People v. Bonilla
2017 IL App (3d) 160457
| Ill. App. Ct. | 2017Background
- Police, acting on a tip, brought a trained drug‑detection dog to an apartment building and walked it through unlocked common hallways.
- The dog alerted at the doorway of apartment 304; officers obtained a search warrant and found cannabis and other items.
- Defendant (occupant of apt. 304) moved to suppress; trial court granted the motion, reasoning that a canine sniff at an apartment door is a Fourth Amendment search under Jardines/Burns.
- State appealed arguing (inter alia) the hallway was not curtilage, no reasonable expectation of privacy in the hallway or odors, dog sniff was not a search, and the good‑faith exception should apply.
- The appellate court (3d Dist.) addressed only legal questions (facts were stipulated) and reviewed de novo.
- Court held the dog sniff at the apartment door in the unlocked building was a Fourth Amendment search (property/curtilage analysis), and the good‑faith exception did not apply; suppression affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Bonilla) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether walking a drug dog in an unlocked building hallway and sniffing an apartment door is a Fourth Amendment search under a property/curtilage approach | Hallway is not curtilage; no trespass to constitutionally protected area | Officer trespassed on curtilage outside the apartment door despite building being unlocked | Held it was a search: hallway outside door qualified as curtilage for purposes of the Fourth Amendment |
| Whether defendant had a reasonable expectation of privacy (privacy approach) in hallway air/odors | No reasonable expectation in common hallway or in odors emanating from apartment | Reasonable expectation against government use of specialized means (drug dog) in the doorway area | Court applied property approach (no need to reach privacy approach) but rejected State’s arguments; protected interest found |
| Whether a dog sniff at a residence is materially different from nonsearch sniffs (e.g., luggage/vehicle) or thermal scans (Kyllo) | Canine sniff of a residence is not a search; distinguishable from Jardines/Kyllo or prior nonsearch dog‑sniff cases | Dog sniff at residence is a search under Jardines; tool used is irrelevant once trespass occurs | Court followed Jardines/Burns: dog sniff of residence doorway is a search; tool used after trespass is irrelevant |
| Whether the good‑faith exception bars suppression | Officers reasonably relied on prior precedent allowing such sniffs; exclusion unnecessary | Officer could not reasonably have believed conduct lawful after Jardines/Burns; good faith inapplicable | Good‑faith exception rejected: Jardines (and Illinois precedent) already made such sniffs searches, so reliance was unreasonable |
Key Cases Cited
- Florida v. Jardines, 569 U.S. 1 (2013) (canine sniff at front door of home is a Fourth Amendment search via trespass to curtilage)
- People v. Burns, 2016 IL 118973 (Ill. 2016) (applies Jardines to apartment building; dog sniff at apartment door in locked building was a search)
- Kyllo v. United States, 533 U.S. 27 (2001) (use of sense‑enhancing technology to explore details of home is a search)
- Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967) (articulates reasonable expectation of privacy test)
- United States v. Dunn, 480 U.S. 294 (1987) (four‑factor curtilage analysis)
- United States v. Sweeney, 821 F.3d 893 (7th Cir. 2016) (discusses application of Jardines to multiunit dwellings)
- United States v. Whitaker, 820 F.3d 849 (7th Cir. 2016) (rejected good‑faith argument for canine sniff at residence; discussed curtilage concerns)