State v. Kono
SC19613
| Conn. | Jan 3, 2017Background
- Police used a drug-detection dog to sniff for contraband at the threshold of the defendant Dennis Kono’s condominium unit in a multi-unit building without a warrant.
- Trial court suppressed the evidence on federal fourth amendment grounds; the case reached the Connecticut Supreme Court on appeal.
- The majority opinion of the Connecticut Supreme Court resolved the issue under the state constitution and found a Fourth Amendment–analogous violation under Connecticut law.
- Justice Zarella concurred only in the judgment but would have decided the case on federal Fourth Amendment grounds, following Second Circuit precedent.
- Zarella argues federal law (notably United States v. Thomas) controls here and that the court should ordinarily address federal claims first when both federal and state constitutional claims are raised.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a warrantless dog sniff at the door of a residential condominium unit is a Fourth Amendment search | Police: sniff outside the door in common hallway is not a search; less privacy expectation | Kono: dog sniff at entry of home searches the home and violates reasonable expectation of privacy | Concurrence: Follow Second Circuit — dog sniff at doorway is a Fourth Amendment search; concurrence votes to affirm suppression (would decide under federal law) |
| Proper order of constitutional analysis when both federal and state claims are raised | Police/Majority: state constitution can be addressed first to insulate from Supreme Court review | Zarella: federal claim should be addressed first unless federal doctrine is truly unsettled | Held (Zarella concurrence): courts should ordinarily decide federal claim first and reach state constitution only if federal law fails or is unsettled |
| Weight to give Second Circuit precedent on federal issues in state court | Police: state court not bound by Second Circuit | Zarella: Second Circuit decisions carry persuasive weight and promote uniformity | Held (Zarella concurrence): Defer to Second Circuit on federal questions when Supreme Court has not spoken; Thomas is persuasive and controlling on issue here |
| Whether state constitutional analysis was necessary given federal precedent | Majority: created state constitutional doctrine without first resolving federal question | Zarella: unnecessary because federal precedent already afforded relief and parties litigated under federal law | Held (Zarella concurrence): State analysis was unnecessary where federal law (Second Circuit) resolves the case; concurred only in judgment |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Thomas, 757 F.2d 1359 (2d Cir.) (warrantless dog sniff at apartment doorway held to be a Fourth Amendment search)
- United States v. Hayes, 551 F.3d 138 (2d Cir. 2008) (approving Thomas on similar Fourth Amendment issue)
- United States v. Whitaker, 820 F.3d 849 (7th Cir. 2016) (post-Kyllo/Jardines circuit decision agreeing that dog sniffs at apartment doors can be searches)
- Kyllo v. United States, 533 U.S. 27 (2001) (technology-assisted intrusions into the home can be searches)
- Florida v. Jardines, 569 U.S. 1 (2013) (police use of drug-detection dog on a home’s porch to investigate the home was a search)
- Illinois v. Caballes, 543 U.S. 405 (2005) (dog sniff during lawful traffic stop of vehicle not a search)
- Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 (1961) (applied exclusionary rule to the states; stressed uniform federal-state Fourth Amendment protections)
- United States v. Pforzheimer, 826 F.2d 200 (2d Cir.) (state constitutional violations do not bind federal courts)