State v. Williams
2015 ND 103
N.D.2015Background
- Fargo police received tips marijuana was being sold from Andrew Williams’s condominium unit and brought a drug-sniffing dog (Disco) to the building.
- Officers entered the property through an open gate, opened an unlocked common door, and walked into the shared hallway of the four-plex condominium.
- The drug dog sniffed the two doors in the hallway, alerted at Williams’s door, and the handler testified he smelled burnt marijuana in the hallway.
- Police obtained a search warrant based on the alert and other observations; Williams was charged with possession of marijuana with intent to deliver and possession of drug paraphernalia.
- Williams moved to suppress evidence arguing the canine sniff in the common hallway was a warrantless search of curtilage/common area; the district court denied the motion and he conditionally pleaded guilty, reserving appeal.
- The Supreme Court of North Dakota affirmed, holding the common hallway was not within the condominium’s curtilage and Williams had no reasonable expectation of privacy in the shared hallway.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a canine sniff in a condominium common hallway is a warrantless search violating the Fourth Amendment | Hallway sniff was lawful; no exclusive privacy right in common areas (State) | Hallway is curtilage of Williams’s unit; canine sniff and officers’ entry were warrantless search (Williams) | Held: Not a Fourth Amendment search. Canine sniff in common condo hallway did not violate rights. |
| Whether the common hallway is within the home’s curtilage | Not curtilage when shared by co-owners/tenants (State) | Hallway is part of the home’s curtilage: built into structure, enclosed, used privately, measures taken to exclude/limit observation (Williams) | Held: Common hallway is not curtilage in a multi-unit dwelling context. |
| Whether Williams had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the hallway | No legitimate expectation; area available to other owners, guests, and agents (State) | Williams exhibited subjective expectation (use, maintenance, fence, key, plant) and society should recognize it as reasonable (Williams) | Held: Expectation diminished in common areas; Williams failed to show a reasonable expectation of privacy. |
| Whether Florida v. Jardines controls and renders the sniff a search based on property intrusion | Jardines distinguished: front porch is classic curtilage; but multi-unit common areas differ (State) | Jardines controls because officers physically intruded into area belonging to Williams to gather info (Williams) | Held: Jardines not controlling here; condo common hallway unlike private front porch—Nguyen controls. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Dunn, 480 U.S. 294 (framework for curtilage analysis)
- Florida v. Jardines, 133 S. Ct. 1409 (presence of officers on private curtilage may be a search)
- State v. Nguyen, 841 N.W.2d 676 (N.D. 2013) (common hallway in multi-unit dwelling not within curtilage; no reasonable expectation of privacy)
- State v. Mittleider, 809 N.W.2d 303 (curtilage definition/factors referenced)