United States v. Democrus Burston
2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 20266
| 8th Cir. | 2015Background
- On March 13, 2012, Cedar Rapids officers brought a drug-detection dog (Marco) to the exterior of an 8‑unit apartment building; Marco alerted to narcotics 6–10 inches from the private window of apartment 4 (Burston’s unit).
- The sniff occurred beyond a bush and near a personal grill; the dog sat next to the apartment window while the handler stood about six feet away.
- Officer Fear submitted a warrant application the same day based on the alert and Burston’s record; a state magistrate issued a warrant and officers searched the apartment six days later, seizing firearms, ammunition, and marijuana residue.
- Burston was arrested, gave a post‑Miranda interview (he spoke but declined to sign a consent form), and was charged as a felon in possession of firearms; he moved to suppress evidence, invoking Florida v. Jardines.
- The magistrate judge and district court found the dog sniff violated Jardines but declined to suppress under the Davis good‑faith exception to the exclusionary rule; Burston appealed the denial of suppression.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Burston) | Defendant's Argument (Government) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the dog sniff was a Fourth Amendment search | The dog sniff occurred on the home’s curtilage (6–10 inches from window) and required a warrant under Jardines | The sniff was not an unlawful search; facts distinguish Jardines | Court: The sniff occurred on curtilage and was an unlawful search under Jardines |
| Whether the officers had implicit license to conduct the sniff | No implicit license justified invading the curtilage; proximity and steps taken (bush, grill) show expectation of privacy | Officer location (six feet away) made reliance on precedent reasonable | Court: No license existed; focusing on officer rather than dog location was incorrect |
| Whether the Davis good‑faith exception precludes suppression | Davis does not apply because prior Eighth Circuit cases did not authorize a dog sniff within inches of a window; reliance was not objectively reasonable | Officers reasonably relied on binding Eighth Circuit precedent (Scott, Brooks) so exclusionary rule should not apply | Court: Davis inapplicable; Scott and Brooks did not supply binding authority for this factual context |
| Whether Leon good‑faith exception saves the warrant/search | Pre‑warrant illegal invasion undermines objective reasonableness of reliance on the later warrant; Leon inapplicable | Government contends warrant reliance was reasonable | Court: Leon inapplicable because pre‑warrant conduct was not close enough to the line of validity |
Key Cases Cited
- Florida v. Jardines, 133 S. Ct. 1409 (2013) (holding a dog sniff on the curtilage/front porch is a Fourth Amendment search)
- Davis v. United States, 131 S. Ct. 2419 (2011) (searches made in objectively reasonable reliance on binding precedent are not subject to exclusionary rule)
- United States v. Scott, 610 F.3d 1009 (8th Cir. 2010) (dog sniff in a common interior hallway was not a Fourth Amendment search)
- United States v. Brooks, 645 F.3d 971 (8th Cir. 2011) (seizure from a shared/common area did not invade curtilage)
- United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 (1984) (good‑faith exception to exclusionary rule for objectively reasonable warrant reliance)
- United States v. Dunn, 480 U.S. 294 (1987) (four‑factor test for determining curtilage)