People v. Lindsey
118 N.E.3d 723
Ill. App. Ct.2019Background
- Police arrested Jonathan Lindsey on an unrelated traffic offense and learned he was staying in motel room 130 at the American Motor Inn.
- Without a warrant or consent, a sheriff’s deputy brought a trained drug-detection dog to the motel corridor and performed a free-air sniff of the exterior of Lindsey’s door; the dog alerted at the door handle/seams.
- Officers obtained a search warrant based on the alert, searched the room, and seized 4.7 grams of heroin; Lindsey later admitted possession and was charged with possession with intent to deliver within 1000 feet of a school.
- Lindsey moved to suppress, arguing the dog sniff was a warrantless search violating the Fourth Amendment; the trial court denied the motion and convicted him after a stipulated bench trial.
- On appeal the court considered (1) whether the dog sniff at the motel door was a Fourth Amendment search and (2) whether the exclusionary rule’s good-faith exception applied; it also addressed challenges to fines/fees imposed in the written judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a free-air dog sniff of the motel-room door was a Fourth Amendment search | No search: motel corridors are public/semipublic, reduced expectation of privacy; Roby supports lawfulness | Yes search: motel guest retains privacy in room; a drug-detection dog is a sense-enhancing device (Kyllo/Jardines) that revealed details otherwise unknowable | Dog sniff was a warrantless Fourth Amendment search; suppression required |
| Whether the good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule applies | Officer reasonably relied on precedent (e.g., Roby); no binding law prohibited the sniff | Officer should have known prior authority (Stoner, Eichelberger, Kyllo, Jardines, Burns) required a warrant; conduct was deliberate, so deterrence warranted | Good-faith exception does not apply; evidence suppressed |
| Whether written fines/fees should remain (drug assessment, street-value fine, DNA fee) | State conceded errors as to fines/fees | Lindsey argued oral pronouncement eliminated fines and he previously submitted DNA | Oral pronouncement controls over conflicting written judgment; drug assessment, street-value fine, and duplicate DNA fee vacated |
Key Cases Cited
- Stoner v. California, 376 U.S. 483 (guest in a hotel room is entitled to Fourth Amendment protection)
- Kyllo v. United States, 533 U.S. 27 (use of sense-enhancing device not in general public use to discover details of a home is a search)
- Florida v. Jardines, 569 U.S. 1 (use of a drug-detection dog at the front door/curtilage of a home constitutes a Fourth Amendment search)
- People v. Burns, 2016 IL 118973 (Illinois: warrantless canine sniff at apartment door in locked building is a search)
- United States v. Whitaker, 820 F.3d 849 (7th Cir. — canine sniff outside apartment door is a search under Kyllo/Jardines analysis)
- United States v. Roby, 122 F.3d 1120 (8th Cir. — hotel-corridor dog sniff held not a Fourth Amendment search)
- People v. Eichelberger, 91 Ill.2d 359 (Illinois Supreme Court recognizes reduced expectation of privacy in hotel common areas)