State of Minnesota v. Kyle Mark Watson, A15-1862

On March 15, 2014 a named citizen told police that Kyle Watson sold marijuana and kept it in a safe in his garage; police records showed prior drug convictions and Watson’s apartment address.
On March 17 a detective smelled marijuana near Watson’s garage; a deputy brought a certified narcotics dog (Buddy), which alerted at the garage threshold and at Watson’s apartment door in the common hallway.
Based on the informant’s tip, the odor, and the dog alerts, police sought and obtained a search warrant for Watson’s apartment executed March 26; officers found marijuana, OxyContin, and drug paraphernalia.
Watson moved to suppress the evidence, arguing the dog sniff at his apartment door violated Fourth Amendment protections because the hallway was curtilage and the informant’s tip lacked reliability/nexus.
The district court denied suppression, concluding the common hallway is not curtilage, the citizen tip was reliable, there was a sufficient nexus, and police had reasonable articulable suspicion for the dog sniff.
Watson was convicted of fifth-degree possession and appealed; the Court of Appeals affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether dog sniff at apartment door violated Fourth Amendment	Watson: hallway is curtilage so sniff required warrant/probable cause	State: common hallway is not curtilage; only reasonable articulable suspicion needed	Sniff did not violate Fourth Amendment; hallway not curtilage
Whether citizen informant’s tip was unreliable	Watson: informant may have been self-interested and not presumptively reliable	State: private identified informant presumptively reliable; corroborated by police observations	Tip was reliable and properly considered
Whether there was nexus between garage drug activity and apartment	Watson: tip implicated garage only, no link to apartment	State: mobility of drugs, prior convictions, odor and dog alerts support inference of drugs in residence	Nexus reasonably inferred; suspicion supported sniff
Whether dog sniff results could be used in warrant affidavit	Watson: dog sniff was unlawful so warrant tainted	State: sniff lawful; alerts properly incorporated into affidavit	Dog sniff lawful; alerts properly included; suppression denied

State v. Davis, 732 N.W.2d 173 (Minn. 2007) (dog sniffs in apartment common areas require reasonable articulable suspicion, not probable cause)
Florida v. Jardines, 569 U.S. 1 (2013) (front porch of a home is curtilage; use of drug-sniffing dog at front door can be a search)
State v. Carter, 697 N.W.2d 199 (Minn. 2005) (a dog sniff can constitute a search under the Minnesota Constitution)
State v. Gauster, 752 N.W.2d 496 (Minn. 2008) (standard of review for suppression rulings)
State v. Luhm, 880 N.W.2d 606 (Minn. App. 2016) (condominium/common-area sniff: area not curtilage; reasonable articulable suspicion sufficient)
Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213 (1983) (totality-of-the-circumstances test for probable cause)
State v. Souto, 578 N.W.2d 744 (Minn. 1998) (probable cause standard for searches of a home)
State v. Ward, 580 N.W.2d 67 (Minn. App. 1998) (police corroboration of informant details can establish reliability)
State v. Ruoho, 685 N.W.2d 451 (Minn. App. 2004) (drug activity observed elsewhere can support probable cause for residence search)
State v. Yarbrough, 841 N.W.2d 619 (Minn. 2014) (nexus between place and evidence may be inferred from circumstances)