State v. Kono
152 A.3d 1
| Conn. | 2016Background
- Police, with consent from the condominium property manager, brought a narcotics dog into common hallways of a multiunit condominium building and had it sniff at unit doors.
- The dog alerted at unit 204; officers then obtained a warrant ~4 hours later and found marijuana plants and firearms in the unit.
- Defendant moved to suppress, arguing a warrantless canine sniff of his door/hallway was a constitutionally protected search under the Fourth Amendment and article first, § 7 of the Connecticut Constitution.
- Trial court suppressed evidence, concluding the canine sniff was a search under federal Fourth Amendment principles and denied the state’s motion.
- The State appealed; the Connecticut Supreme Court reviewed principally under the state constitution and affirmed suppression, holding a canine sniff directed at a home (including units in multiunit buildings) is a search requiring a warrant supported by probable cause.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Kono) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a warrantless canine sniff of the exterior threshold/adjacent common hallway of a condominium unit to detect drugs is a "search" | A canine sniff is not a search because it reveals only contraband (no reasonable privacy interest); common hallways are not private; consent from property manager made presence lawful | Canine sniff aimed at detecting contraband inside the home intrudes on the heightened privacy of the home (even when conducted from a shared hallway) and thus is a search requiring a warrant | Held: A canine sniff directed at a residence (standalone or in a multiunit building) is a search under article first, § 7 and requires a warrant supported by probable cause; evidence suppressed |
| Whether the common-hallway location or manager consent made the sniff nonsearch | Officers were lawfully present in common areas and manager consented, so no protected privacy interest was invaded | Even lawful presence in common areas does not permit use of a sensitive investigatory technique to probe the home's interior without a warrant; policy concerns if multiunit residents had lesser protections | Held: Lawful presence in a hallway and consent to enter common areas do not justify a warrantless canine sniff directed at a home |
| Whether precedent distinguishing vehicle/luggage sniffs (Place, Caballes) controls | Place and Caballes show dog sniffs that reveal only contraband are not searches and should apply to residences | The home is categorically different; bright-line protections at the home’s entrance (Kyllo, Jardines) mean canine sniffs probing interior contraband are searches | Held: Place/Caballes are distinguishable; home protections prevail—canine sniffs of homes implicate constitution and require warrants |
| Whether federal precedent definitively resolves the issue | (State) Some federal cases say no-search; others (Second, Seventh Circuits) say search — federal law unsettled | (Defendant) Federal precedent (esp. Second Circuit Thomas and post-Jardines Kyllo reasoning) supports treating residential canine sniffs as searches | Held: Federal law is not definitively settled; under Connecticut’s article first, § 7 the sniff is a search and needs probable-cause warrant |
Key Cases Cited
- Kyllo v. United States, 533 U.S. 27 (2001) (using non‑public technology to obtain details of a home’s interior is a search)
- Florida v. Jardines, 569 U.S. 1 (2013) (bringing a drug dog onto a home’s curtilage to investigate the home is a search; trespass/curtilage analysis)
- United States v. Thomas, 757 F.2d 1359 (2d Cir. 1985) (canine sniff of an apartment door in a multiunit building held to be a search)
- United States v. Place, 462 U.S. 696 (1983) (dog sniff of luggage at airport discloses only contraband and is not a search)
- Illinois v. Caballes, 543 U.S. 405 (2005) (canine sniff of vehicle during traffic stop is not a search where it reveals only contraband)
- United States v. Whitaker, 820 F.3d 849 (7th Cir. 2016) (extending Kyllo/Jardines reasoning to hold apartment‑door dog sniff is a search)
- United States v. Hopkins, 824 F.3d 726 (8th Cir. 2016) (curtilage analysis applying Jardines to front‑stoop/townhouse sniff)
- State v. Waz, 240 Conn. 365 (1997) (recognizing higher privacy interests in homes and discussing canine sniff issues under state law)