United States v. Oscar Gutierrez, 760 F.3d 750

In November 2012 police, acting on an informant tip, went to Gutierrez’s Indianapolis residence, knocked, saw movement but received no answer, and had a certified narcotics dog (Fletch) sniff the front door; the dog alerted.
After roughly fifteen minutes of knocking and instruction from the prosecutor, officers entered and secured the home, performed a protective sweep, then obtained a search warrant based in part on the dog’s alert.
The executed warrant led to discovery of a duffel bag with 11.3 pounds of methamphetamine; Gutierrez was charged and later pleaded guilty but preserved the right to appeal the suppression denial.
After the search, the Supreme Court decided Florida v. Jardines (2013), holding a drug-dog sniff on the curtilage is a Fourth Amendment search, raising the question whether the 2012 sniff here was unconstitutional.
The district court denied suppression applying the good-faith/binding-precedent exception from Davis v. United States; the Seventh Circuit affirmed, finding United States v. Brock (7th Cir. 2005) controlled at the time of the search.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
1. Was the dog sniff at the door a Fourth Amendment search that required a warrant?	Gutierrez: dog sniff on curtilage was a search (Jardines/Jones) and rendered the warrant invalid.	Government: at the time of the sniff binding precedent treated dog sniffs as not searches (Caballes/Place/Brock).	The court: Jardines later held such sniffs are searches, but at the time Brock was binding and permitted the conduct.
2. If the sniff was unconstitutional, should the evidence be excluded?	Gutierrez: exclusion warranted because Fourth Amendment rights were violated and later precedent shows it was unlawful.	Government: Davis good-faith exception applies because officers relied on then-binding appellate precedent (Brock).	The court: applied Davis; because Brock was binding precedent, exclusionary rule does not apply and evidence stands.
3. Did the pre-warrant entry and sweep violate the Fourth Amendment?	Gutierrez: entry before warrant was unlawful and independently sanctionable.	Government: brief entry to secure premises while obtaining a warrant is permitted where probable cause exists (Segura/Etchin).	The court: entry was permissible to preserve the status quo; actual search did not occur until warrant arrived.

United States v. Brock, 417 F.3d 692 (7th Cir. 2005) (Seventh Circuit held a dog sniff at a residence’s interior doorway was not a Fourth Amendment search where officers were lawfully present)
Florida v. Jardines, 569 U.S. 1 (2013) (Supreme Court held a drug-dog sniff on the curtilage of a home is a Fourth Amendment search)
Davis v. United States, 564 U.S. 229 (2011) (exclusionary rule inapplicable when officers act in objectively reasonable reliance on binding appellate precedent)
United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 (1984) (good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule for reasonable reliance on a warrant)
Kyllo v. United States, 533 U.S. 27 (2001) (warrant required for some surveillance technologies directed at the home)