46 F.4th 691
8th Cir.
2022
Read the full case

Background

  • Davenport police used a known confidential informant’s tip that Perez had a gun and sold drugs and that he lived with Brontianna Hare in Apartment 10; officers verified Hare’s address via utilities records.
  • Officers entered the apartment building through an unlocked back door under an agreement with the manager to perform hallway drug-dog sniffs; the dog alerted at the bottom seam of Apartments 10 and 12.
  • Based on the dog alert Officer Farley obtained a warrant for Apartment 10; after arresting Perez (who dropped a bag of crack during a foot chase) police executed the warrant and found drugs, paraphernalia, and a pistol; Perez admitted possessing the gun.
  • Perez conditionally pleaded guilty, preserved the suppression issue, and later moved to suppress evidence from the dog sniff/search; the district court denied suppression, relying on the Leon good-faith exception.
  • The PSR classified Perez as an armed career criminal (ACCA) based on three prior Iowa delivery-of-cocaine convictions, triggering a 15-year mandatory minimum; Perez objected that the prior convictions were not ACCA “serious drug offenses.”
  • The Eighth Circuit affirmed denial of suppression (good-faith reliance on then-applicable precedent) but held Perez’s Iowa statute was categorically overbroad compared to the federal CSA in effect at the time of his federal offense (2019), vacated his ACCA sentence, and remanded for resentencing; it also addressed related Guidelines issues.

Issues

Issue Perez's Argument Government's Argument Held
1) Were the hallway dog sniff and alert an unlawful Fourth Amendment intrusion? The dog sniff intruded on the apartment’s curtilage or violated reasonable privacy immediately outside the door (Jardines-type intrusion). The sniff was permitted under then-controlling Eighth Circuit precedent allowing interior apartment door sniffs. Denial of suppression affirmed: although a Jardines issue existed, officers reasonably relied on prior Eighth Circuit precedent; Leon good-faith exception applies.
2) If the sniff was unlawful, does the Leon good-faith exception nonetheless permit admission? Evidence should be excluded because the sniff tainted the warrant affidavit; the warrant lacked probable cause without the sniff. Officers relied objectively reasonably on binding circuit precedent, so the exclusionary rule does not apply. Good-faith exception applies; suppression denied.
3) Do Perez’s three Iowa cocaine convictions qualify as ACCA “serious drug offenses,” and which federal CSA schedule controls the categorical comparison? Iowa convictions are not ACCA predicates because Iowa’s statute is broader than the federal CSA in effect at the time of sentencing (2019); federal law at time of federal offense controls. The government urged comparison to the CSA in effect at the time of the state convictions (2013) or otherwise supported qualification. Held for Perez: compare state statute to the federal CSA in effect at the time of the federal offense; Iowa’s statute included ioflupane (excluded by the 2019 CSA), so convictions are categorically overbroad and not ACCA predicates; ACCA sentence vacated.
4) Guidelines and criminal-history issues absent ACCA: do prior Iowa convictions count as "controlled substance offenses" for Guidelines, and was one point for an Illinois fleeing conviction proper? Perez challenged counting prior Iowa offenses and the Illinois misdemeanor point. Government argued prior Iowa convictions qualify under Guidelines and the Illinois fleeing conviction is similar to listed offenses, so one point was proper. Held: Under circuit precedent, the Iowa convictions count as controlled-substance offenses for Guidelines purposes (use law at time of conviction for Guidelines analysis); the Illinois fleeing conviction is not similar to resisting/hindering statutes and the one criminal-history point stands.

Key Cases Cited

  • Florida v. Jardines, 569 U.S. 1 (2013) (dog sniff on front porch is a search of curtilage)
  • United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 (1984) (good-faith exception to exclusionary rule)
  • Davis v. United States, 564 U.S. 229 (2011) (evidence obtained in reasonable reliance on binding precedent not excluded)
  • United States v. Scott, 610 F.3d 1009 (8th Cir. 2010) (Eighth Circuit precedent addressing dog sniffs at interior apartment doors)
  • McNeill v. United States, 563 U.S. 816 (2011) (use state-law maximum sentence in effect at time of state conviction for certain ACCA analyses)
  • United States v. Hopkins, 824 F.3d 726 (8th Cir. 2016) (curtilage/Dunn-factor analysis for apartment door area)
  • United States v. Henderson, 11 F.4th 713 (8th Cir. 2021) (Guidelines’ "controlled substance" scope includes state-law offenses)
Read the full case