Rendon, Michael Eric
PD-0015-15
| Tex. App. | Mar 3, 2015Background
- Michael Eric Rendon was charged with money laundering; he moved to suppress evidence after a narcotics-detection dog alerted at the exterior of his apartment door.
- On May 8, 2012, Detective Jason Stover and his certified canine (Baco) conducted an open-air sniff at the second-floor landing outside Apartment C in a four-plex; the dog alerted at Rendon’s exterior door.
- The apartment complex had open, unenclosed common stairways and balconies; tenants had no demonstrated authority to exclude others from the common areas.
- The trial court granted Rendon’s suppression motion, finding the landing area was part of the apartment’s curtilage and that the open-air sniff constituted an unlawful search.
- The Thirteenth Court of Appeals affirmed, concluding the sniff occurred within the apartment’s curtilage; the State appealed to the Court of Criminal Appeals seeking reversal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Rendon) | Held (Court of Appeals) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the landing outside Rendon’s apartment constitutes curtilage | Curtilage requires the resident’s power to exclude others; Rendon lacked such exclusive control over the common landing, so it is not curtilage | The area immediately outside the apartment door is part of the apartment’s curtilage because of proximity and use | The court held the landing was curtilage and subject to Fourth Amendment protection |
| Whether an open-air canine sniff from that location is a Fourth Amendment search | An open-air sniff from a lawful, non-curtilage common area is not a search; the sniff here was from a common area and thus lawful | The canine sniff occurred within curtilage, so it was a search requiring warrant or exception | Because the sniff occurred within curtilage, the Court of Appeals treated it as an unreasonable search and affirmed suppression |
| Whether use of a detection dog to sniff odors implicates Kyllo’s prohibition on novel surveillance technology | Dogs and olfaction are long-established and in public use; Kyllo (novel tech) does not apply to canine sniffs from lawful vantage points | Canine sniff at the home’s threshold is a search (per Jardines) and cannot be justified as non-technology-based intrusion | Court of Appeals relied on curtilage/trespass reasoning (Jardines) to invalidate the sniff; State argues Kyllo is inapplicable here |
| Whether evidence discovered after the sniff should be suppressed | If sniff was lawful (non-curtilage), it provided probable cause for a warrant and evidence should not have been suppressed | If sniff was an unlawful curtilage search, evidence obtained thereafter must be suppressed | Court of Appeals suppressed the evidence because it found the sniff unlawful inside curtilage |
Key Cases Cited
- California v. Ciraolo, 476 U.S. 207 (upheld visual observation of curtilage from public airspace)
- Florida v. Jardines, 569 U.S. 1 (open-air canine sniff at front door was a search based on physical intrusion/trespass)
- Kyllo v. United States, 533 U.S. 27 (use of novel thermal imaging to monitor home violated Fourth Amendment)
- United States v. Dunn, 480 U.S. 294 (four-factor test for determining curtilage)
- Illinois v. Caballes, 543 U.S. 405 (canine sniff of vehicle during lawful stop is not a search)
- Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (Fourth Amendment protects people, not places; expectation of privacy test)
- State v. Weaver, 349 S.W.3d 521 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011) (canine sniff not a search if conducted from a place officers had right to be)