State v. Scull
843 N.W.2d 859
Wis. Ct. App.2014Background
- In summer 2010 a confidential informant (previously reliable) told police that Scull distributed cocaine and possibly lived at 4506 N. 42nd St.; informant also described Scull’s Ford Bronco. Police verified the vehicle and address.
- Detective Edersinghe brought a trained narcotics-detection dog (Voden) to Scull’s residence; the dog alerted at the front door after an approach of under 20 seconds while officers remained on the walkway.
- Police obtained a search warrant based on the informant’s tip and the dog’s alert; executing the warrant produced drugs and paraphernalia. Scull moved to suppress evidence as the dog sniff invaded curtilage without a warrant.
- After the circuit court denied suppression, Scull pleaded guilty to possession with intent to deliver (cocaine) and keeping a drug house, and appealed the denial. The U.S. Supreme Court decided Florida v. Jardines while the appeal was pending, holding a drug-dog sniff at the front door is a Fourth Amendment search.
- The Wisconsin Court of Appeals agreed Jardines invalidated the warrant but held the good-faith exception saved the evidence because officers reasonably relied on the warrant given the affidavit, prior case law, and review by a court commissioner and assistant district attorney.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was bringing a drug-sniffing dog to Scull’s front door a Fourth Amendment search? | Scull: Yes — dog sniff invaded curtilage and required a warrant. | State: Prior to Jardines, many courts treated such dog sniffs as non-searches. | Held: Yes — Jardines controls; the dog sniff was a search. |
| Does Jardines’ invalidation of the warrant require suppression of evidence obtained under that warrant? | Scull: Yes — warrant was substantially based on the illegal dog sniff, so evidence must be excluded. | State: No — good-faith exception applies because officers reasonably relied on the warrant. | Held: Good-faith exception applies; evidence not suppressed. |
| Did the warrant affidavit reflect a significant investigation and review sufficient to invoke the good-faith exception? | Scull: Affidavit lacked independent facts linking drugs to the house absent the dog alert. | State: Affidavit showed informant reliability, verification of address/vehicle, dog credentials, and review by ADA and court commissioner. | Held: The affidavit and pre-Jardines caselaw made reliance objectively reasonable; good-faith exception satisfied. |
| Would applying the exclusionary rule here provide meaningful deterrence? | Scull: Exclusion is warranted because the search violated the Fourth Amendment. | State: Exclusion would not deter because officers acted reasonably under then-existing law and procedures. | Held: Exclusionary-rule deterrent benefits do not outweigh costs; do not apply suppression. |
Key Cases Cited
- Florida v. Jardines, 133 S. Ct. 1409 (U.S. 2013) (police use of drug-detection dog at home’s front door is a Fourth Amendment search)
- United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 (U.S. 1984) (good-faith exception to exclusionary rule for objectively reasonable reliance on a warrant)
- State v. Dearborn, 327 Wis. 2d 252 (Wis. 2010) (exclusionary rule as last resort; analysis of deterrence and good-faith principles)
- State v. Eason, 245 Wis. 2d 206 (Wis. 2001) (good-faith exception requires warrant procurement process to include significant investigation and review)
- Illinois v. Caballes, 543 U.S. 405 (U.S. 2005) (dog sniff of vehicle exterior not a Fourth Amendment search)