38 F.4th 527
7th Cir.2022Background
- Lewis was a mid-level participant in a drug-trafficking operation; an FBI informant provided a cell number tied to a Sprint prepaid phone allegedly used by Lewis. The government obtained a § 2703(d) tracking order to collect location data.
- Sprint reported the phone within a ~1,099-meter radius of Greenwood, Indiana on Feb. 3, 2015; Marshals checked parking lots and nearby hotels for a black Mercedes and related leads.
- Officers observed a woman resembling Lewis’s wife park a Cadillac registered to Lewis, carry a duffel into Room 211 at the Red Roof Inn (an exterior‑hallway, second‑floor room), and leave minutes later.
- A K‑9 was walked along the exterior hallway and alerted at Room 211; officers then obtained a search warrant and found Lewis, $2 million in cash, and 19.8 kg of cocaine.
- The magistrate recommended suppression (dog sniff violated the Fourth Amendment), but the district court denied the motion; after a bench trial Lewis was convicted.
- The Seventh Circuit affirmed: (1) the exterior hallway dog sniff did not constitute a Fourth Amendment search, and (2) even if the CSLI use were a search, the good‑faith exception to exclusion applied to the § 2703(d) order.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the dog‑sniff of the exterior hotel hallway was a Fourth Amendment search | Lewis: sniff invaded reasonable expectation of privacy; extend Whitaker to hotel hallway | Govt: exterior hallway is public-like (accessible from parking lot); akin to Caballes/Place, so no reasonable expectation | Court: no search—exterior open-air hallway not curtilage; dog sniff permissible |
| Whether the § 2703(d) tracking order / real‑time CSLI required a warrant under Carpenter | Lewis: use of real‑time CSLI amounted to a warrantless search; §2703(d) insufficient post‑Carpenter | Govt: order was obtained pre‑Carpenter under §2703(d); officers reasonably relied on existing law; real‑time CSLI less invasive than historical | Court: even assuming a search, good‑faith exception applies; reliance on §2703(d) was reasonable |
| Whether known errors/misidentification in the affidavit (wrong birth year / 1977 Lewis) required stopping the investigation or suppression | Lewis: mix‑up showing target was not the 1977 Lewis with outstanding warrant undermined the order; officers should have halted | Govt: discrepancy (birth year) was minor; other independent corroboration (vehicle registration, informant tip, observed conduct) justified continuing | Court: discrepancy not materially undermining; observations leading to arrest were independent and attenuated suppression concern |
| Whether evidence should be suppressed and conviction overturned if suppression were required | Lewis: suppress hotel evidence; if suppressed, remaining evidence insufficient | Govt: suppression unwarranted; even if suppressed, independent evidence (texts, ledger, witness testimony) supports conviction | Court: denial of suppression affirmed; because suppression was denied, court did not need to reassess sufficiency (district court had found guilt beyond reasonable doubt even if suppression had occurred) |
Key Cases Cited
- Florida v. Jardines, 569 U.S. 1 (2013) (drug‑sniff on front porch is a search; front porch is curtilage)
- Illinois v. Caballes, 543 U.S. 405 (2005) (dog sniff during lawful traffic stop not a search because it reveals only contraband)
- United States v. Whitaker, 820 F.3d 849 (7th Cir. 2016) (warrantless dog sniff in interior apartment hallway constitutes a search)
- United States v. Place, 462 U.S. 696 (1983) (dog sniff of luggage in public area is not a search because it discloses only presence/absence of narcotics)
- Carpenter v. United States, 138 S. Ct. 2206 (2018) (historical CSLI over a prolonged period is a search requiring a warrant)
- United States v. Jones, 565 U.S. 400 (2012) (physical intrusion onto protected property is a search under common‑law trespass theory)
- United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 (1984) (exclusionary rule does not apply when officers act in objective good faith on a facially valid warrant)
- United States v. Curtis, 901 F.3d 846 (7th Cir.) (good‑faith exception applied to historical CSLI obtained under § 2703(d) pre‑Carpenter)
- United States v. Hammond, 996 F.3d 374 (7th Cir. 2021) (analysis of real‑time CSLI; considered good‑faith reliance and whether real‑time tracking is a search)