United States v. Donnell Hopkins
2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 9782
| 8th Cir. | 2016Background
- Officer Fear brought narcotics K-9 Marco to the Cambridge Townhomes after a tip that a resident was dealing drugs; Marco ran along building exteriors and alerted within 6–8 inches of the front door of unit #6.
- Fear applied for and obtained a search warrant from an Iowa magistrate based on an affidavit describing the dog sniff of the exterior door; surveillance later identified Donnell Hopkins as frequenting unit #6.
- Officers executed the warrant, encountered Hopkins outside the unit, ordered him to the ground, and found a handgun and small bags of cocaine and marijuana on his person; additional drugs were found inside the unit.
- Hopkins moved to suppress the evidence arguing the dog sniff violated Florida v. Jardines and thus the warrant lacked probable cause; the magistrate and district courts denied suppression, invoking the Leon good-faith exception and upholding a Terry stop/pat-down.
- Hopkins also sought to strike gang-affiliation references in the presentence report; the district court declined to strike but stated it did not rely on those statements in sentencing.
Issues
| Issue | Hopkins' Argument | Government's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Legality of dog sniff at apartment door (curtilage) | Dog sniff within inches of door invaded curtilage per Jardines | Area was common/outside; officer reasonably believed Jardines inapplicable | Dog sniff violated Jardines; area found to be curtilage |
| Admissibility of evidence obtained via warrant based on sniff | Warrant tainted by unconstitutional sniff; evidence must be suppressed | Leon good-faith exception renders evidence admissible | Leon applies; evidence admitted because officer reasonably relied on magistrate |
| Validity of stop and frisk of Hopkins | Stop/frisk were fruits of unlawful sniff, so unlawful | Officers had reasonable suspicion and could pat down for weapons | Stop and frisk were justified under Terry; evidence on person admissible |
| Presentence Report gang-mention removal | Unsubstantiated gang references should be stricken; due process violated | District court did not rely on those statements; Rule 32 does not require striking | Court refused to strike; no due process violation where statements not used in sentencing |
Key Cases Cited
- Florida v. Jardines, 569 U.S. 1 (2013) (dog sniff of home curtilage is a Fourth Amendment search)
- United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 (1984) (good-faith exception to exclusionary rule for warrants issued by neutral magistrate)
- United States v. Burston, 806 F.3d 1123 (8th Cir. 2015) (dog sniff at apartment window held to invade curtilage)
- United States v. Cannon, 703 F.3d 407 (8th Cir. 2013) (applying Leon where officers disclosed sniff facts to magistrate and reasonably relied on warrant)
- United States v. Bausby, 720 F.3d 652 (8th Cir. 2013) (factors for determining curtilage under Dunn)