State of Minnesota v. Stuart Donald Luhm, 2016 Minn. App. LEXIS 41

Background

Officers received a tip from a confidential informant that Luhm and girlfriend Steinmetz were trafficking large quantities of marijuana and had recently been robbed of ~25 lbs of marijuana and ~$15,000.
Surveillance confirmed vehicles registered to them at a secured multi-unit condominium; officers knew the pair had a prior drug arrest together.
The building’s property manager had provided the police department a front-door key kept in a locked Knox box accessible to officers.
Two officers entered the building using that key, walked to the third-floor hallway outside Luhm’s unit, and a trained drug-detection dog alerted at the unit’s door seam.
A search warrant issued based on the informant tip, the defendants’ arrest history, and the dog alert; the subsequent search recovered large quantities of marijuana, oxycodone, firearms, and bulletproof vests.
Luhm moved to suppress, arguing the warrantless entry into the secured building and the hallway dog sniff violated the Fourth Amendment (and Minnesota Constitution); the district court denied suppression and the convictions were affirmed on appeal.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Luhm)	Defendant's Argument (State)	Held
Lawfulness of officers’ warrantless entry into secured condominium building	Entry was unlawful because property manager lacked authority/consent was overbroad and no emergency justified use of key	Luhm had no reasonable expectation of privacy in common areas; property manager consented (actual or apparent)	Entry lawful: resident lacks reasonable privacy in common areas; alternatively manager consent (apparent authority) justified entry
Whether dog sniff at unit door was a Fourth Amendment search	Dog sniff at the door seam was a search requiring probable cause under Jardines	Dog sniff was not a Fourth Amendment search; under Minnesota law reasonable suspicion suffices	Under federal analysis area outside unit not curtilage; federal Fourth Amendment not implicated; under Minnesota Constitution reasonable-suspicion standard applies
Sufficiency of grounds for dog sniff	The informant was unreliable and no specific facts tied illegal activity to residence to justify sniff	Informant had prior reliability and tip was corroborated by arrest history and robbery details suggesting large quantities stored at residence	Officers had reasonable, articulable suspicion (informant reliability + corroboration + robbery detail) to justify the dog sniff
Validity of resulting search warrant and seized evidence	If entry or sniff unlawful, warrant and evidence must be suppressed	Warrant valid because sniff and entry were lawful; evidence admissible	Warrant and evidence upheld; suppression denial affirmed

Key Cases Cited

Florida v. Jardines, 569 U.S. 1 (2013) (dog sniff on single-family home porch held a Fourth Amendment search)
Kyllo v. United States, 533 U.S. 27 (2001) (use of sense‑enhancing technology to obtain details of home is a search)
Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573 (1980) (warrantless entry into a residence presumptively unreasonable)
United States v. Matlock, 415 U.S. 164 (1974) (third‑party common authority can supply consent to search)
United States v. Dunn, 480 U.S. 294 (1987) (factors for determining curtilage)
Rakas v. Illinois, 439 U.S. 128 (1978) (legitimate expectation of privacy governs Fourth Amendment protection)
Illinois v. Rodriguez, 497 U.S. 177 (1990) (officer may rely on apparent authority to consent when reasonable belief exists)
State v. Davis, 732 N.W.2d 173 (Minn. 2007) (under Minnesota Constitution, dog sniff in common hallway requires reasonable articulable suspicion)
State v. Carter, 697 N.W.2d 199 (Minn. 2005) (dog sniff at outdoor storage unit in secured facility allowed with reasonable suspicion when police lawfully present)
State v. Milton, 821 N.W.2d 789 (Minn. 2012) (resident has diminished expectation of privacy in common areas of multifamily residences)