United States v. Lonnie Whitaker
2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 6655
7th Cir.2016Background
- Police received informant tips and observed a black Cadillac Escalade linked to Apartment 204; property manager consented to a K9 search of the building.
- A K9 (Hunter) alerted to the Escalade and later, after being brought into the building’s locked common hallway, alerted at the door of Apartment 204.
- Officers obtained a warrant based on the alerts, searched Apartment 204, and seized drugs and a firearm; Whitaker (resident) was arrested and later admitted residency and the firearm.
- Whitaker moved to suppress the evidence, requested a Franks hearing, and sought the dog’s training records; the magistrate and district court denied relief and Whitaker preserved his right to appeal via a conditional plea.
- On appeal Whitaker argued (1) the hallway dog sniff was a Fourth Amendment search under Jardines/Kyllo, (2) a Franks hearing was required for omissions in the affidavit, (3) training records should be produced under Harris, and (4) revocation sentence improper because supervised release expired.
- The Seventh Circuit reversed the denial of the suppression motion (holding the hallway dog sniff was a search) and remanded; remaining issues were rendered moot.
Issues
| Issue | Whitaker's Argument | Government's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether bringing a drug‑sniffing dog to an apartment door in a locked common hallway is a Fourth Amendment search | The dog sniff at the door was a search under Jardines and Kyllo because it used a "sense‑enhancing" device to detect inside activity | Hallway is a common area; tenants have no reasonable expectation of privacy there, so no search occurred | Court held it was a Fourth Amendment search; Jardines/Kyllo principles apply to dog sniffs at apartment doors |
| Whether the good‑faith exception (reliance on binding precedent) saves the search | N/A (Whitaker argued illegality) | Officers reasonably relied on circuit precedent holding no expectation of privacy in common areas | Rejected: no binding precedent authorized use of a "super‑sensitive" device (K9) at an apartment door; good‑faith exception did not apply |
| Whether a Franks hearing was required for alleged omissions in the warrant affidavit | Affidavit omitted material facts warranting a Franks hearing | Affidavit was sufficient; no material omissions | Not reached on merits (moot after reversal of suppression denial) |
| Whether training records of the dog should have been produced under Harris | Hunter’s training/accuracy records were required to test reliability | Records production not required or was properly denied | Not reached on merits (moot after reversal of suppression denial) |
Key Cases Cited
- Florida v. Jardines, 569 U.S. 1 (2013) (use of a drug‑sniffing dog on a home’s curtilage is a Fourth Amendment search)
- Kyllo v. United States, 533 U.S. 27 (2001) (use of sense‑enhancing technology to explore details of the home is a search)
- Davis v. United States, 564 U.S. 229 (2011) (good‑faith exception applies when police rely on binding appellate precedent)
- United States v. Place, 462 U.S. 696 (1983) (dog sniffs of luggage in public places do not implicate home privacy interests)
- Illinois v. Caballes, 543 U.S. 405 (2005) (dog sniff during lawful traffic stop is not a search implicating privacy of the home)
- United States v. Concepcion, 942 F.2d 1170 (7th Cir. 1991) (tenants lack a reasonable expectation of privacy in common areas of multi‑family buildings)
- United States v. Espinoza, 256 F.3d 718 (7th Cir. 2001) (same principle regarding common areas and expectation of privacy)
- Henry v. City of Chicago, 702 F.3d 916 (7th Cir. 2012) (absence of reasonable expectation of privacy in common areas barring special circumstances)