Rendon, Michael Eric
PD-0013-15
| Tex. App. | Dec 16, 2015Background
- Officers investigating Michael Rendon for drug activity took a trained drug-detection dog (Baco) to his apartment complex and had the dog sniff Rendon’s parked car; Baco alerted.
- Detective Stover then walked Baco up the stairs to the upstairs landing and directly to the threshold/bottom-left portion of Rendon’s front apartment door; Baco alerted again.
- Using the dog alerts, Stover applied for and obtained a search warrant; officers executed it and seized marijuana and cash; Rendon was indicted for possession and money laundering.
- Rendon moved to suppress, arguing the dog sniff at his door was an unlawful Fourth Amendment search; the trial court granted suppression, finding the landing/threshold was curtilage.
- The court of appeals affirmed suppression, relying on Florida v. Jardines; the State sought discretionary review to challenge whether the area outside the apartment was curtilage.
- The Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed, holding that bringing a drug-detection dog to the apartment threshold for a sniff was an unlicensed physical intrusion into curtilage and thus an unlawful search.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Rendon) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether bringing a drug-detection dog to an apartment door for a sniff is a Fourth Amendment search | The sniff at the landing/door was not a search; common or semi-public areas permit the conduct and supported the warrant | The dog sniff at the threshold intruded on the curtilage and exceeded any implied license, so it was an unlawful search | Held: It was a search—bringing the dog to the threshold was an unlicensed physical intrusion into the curtilage in violation of the Fourth Amendment |
| Whether the area at the apartment threshold is curtilage for Fourth Amendment purposes | Area is a common/semi-public area, not part of the home’s curtilage | The landing/threshold is intimately linked to the apartment and part of its curtilage | Held (narrow): The threshold/area immediately outside the apartment door was within the curtilage for purposes of the physical-intrusion analysis; broader curtilage boundary questions left open |
| Whether evidence from the warrant should be suppressed if the sniff was unlawful | Warrant valid because probable cause existed or dog alert lawful | Warrant tainted by unlawful sniff; evidence should be suppressed | Held: Because the sniff was an unconstitutional intrusion, evidence obtained via the resulting warrant was obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment and suppression was proper |
| Whether the Katz expectation-of-privacy test must be addressed here | State argued alternative Katz analysis could defeat suppression | Rendon relied on property-based Jardines reasoning | Held: Court applied Jardines physical-intrusion/property baseline and declined to reach Katz expectation-of-privacy analysis |
Key Cases Cited
- Florida v. Jardines, 569 U.S. 1 (2013) (using property-based physical-intrusion test to hold a dog sniff on a home’s porch is a search)
- United States v. Jones, 565 U.S. 400 (2012) (Fourth Amendment search occurs when government physically intrudes to obtain information)
- Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967) (established reasonable-expectation-of-privacy test)
- Oliver v. United States, 466 U.S. 170 (1984) (discusses curtilage and its protections)
- California v. Ciraolo, 476 U.S. 207 (1986) (curtilage described as area intimately linked to the home)
- United States v. Dunn, 480 U.S. 294 (1987) (factors for determining curtilage boundaries)
- Silverman v. United States, 365 U.S. 505 (1961) (sensitive nature of home privacy protections)