62 F.4th 1087
8th Cir.2023Background
- In Sept. 2019 Davenport PD conducted two K-9 sniffs: first at 314 Betsy Ross Apt 2 (Kurly alerted), then after Hines moved, at 321 Betsy Ross Apt 1 (Dawn alerted with management’s permission).
- Officers obtained a search warrant based on the dog alerts, complaints from management, and Hines’s tenancy and criminal history; police executed the warrant and seized cocaine, crack, heroin, and cash.
- Hines moved to suppress the fruits of the search and his statements and requested a Franks hearing alleging material omissions/misstatements in the warrant affidavit.
- The district court found the warrantless K-9 sniffs were Fourth Amendment intrusions on the curtilage, but denied suppression because the Leon good-faith exception applied; it also denied the Franks request and rejected Hines’s Miranda-based challenge to his statements.
- Hines conditionally pleaded guilty and appealed; the Eighth Circuit affirmed, applying circuit precedent on good-faith reliance and routine identification questioning.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Hines) | Defendant's Argument (Gov't) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Legality of warrantless K-9 sniffs at apartment door (curtilage) | Sniffs violated Fourth Amendment under Jardines as physical intrusion of home curtilage / violated expectation of privacy | Even if unconstitutional, officers acted in accordance with then-binding circuit precedent allowing interior-apartment door sniffs | Court acknowledged sniffs likely violated Jardines but affirmed suppression denial because of Leon good-faith reliance on controlling precedent |
| Application of Leon good-faith exception | Leon should not save evidence because warrant was tainted by unconstitutional sniffs and affidavit omissions | Officers reasonably relied on Eighth Circuit precedent (e.g., Scott/Mathews) so exclusionary rule inapplicable | Good-faith exception applied; objectively reasonable for officers to rely on then-governing caselaw (Perez controlling) |
| Franks hearing request (alleged omissions/misstatements in affidavit) | Affidavit omitted critical details about sniff proximity, number/location of alerts, touching of door—warrant unsupported; entitled to Franks hearing | Omissions merely relitigate curtilage merits; no substantial showing of deliberate falsehood or reckless disregard; remaining affidavit sufficed for probable cause under circuit law | Denied: Hines failed to make the substantial preliminary showing required for Franks; alleged omissions were not clearly critical to probable cause given existing precedent |
| Suppression of pre-/post-arrest statements (Miranda) | Initial custodial questioning before Miranda and later waiver were coerced/tainted; statements inadmissible | Early questions were routine identification/safety questions not amounting to interrogation; Miranda warnings were later given and waived voluntarily | Denied: initial questions were non-interrogative routine ID/safety inquiries; Miranda warnings were given before substantive questioning and waiver was valid |
Key Cases Cited
- Florida v. Jardines, 569 U.S. 1 (2013) (front-porch drug-dog sniff can be a Fourth Amendment search)
- United States v. Perez, 46 F.4th 691 (8th Cir. 2022) (applies Leon where circuit precedent permitted interior apartment door sniffs pre-Jardines clarification)
- United States v. Scott, 610 F.3d 1009 (8th Cir. 2010) (earlier circuit precedent upholding dog sniffs at interior apartment doors)
- United States v. Mathews, 784 F.3d 1232 (8th Cir. 2015) (positive dog alerts at apartment doors provided probable cause under circuit precedent)
- United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 (1984) (good-faith exception to exclusionary rule)
- Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154 (1978) (standard for demanding an evidentiary hearing to challenge affidavit truthfulness)
- Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966) (custodial interrogation requires warnings)
- Davis v. United States, 564 U.S. 229 (2011) (evidence obtained in reasonable reliance on binding precedent not subject to exclusionary rule)