906 F.3d 554
7th Cir.2018Background
- Velazquez agreed to sell 12 kg of cocaine to an undercover agent and told the agent he would return with a suitcase containing the drugs.
- Surveillance followed Velazquez to his Streamwood home; he carried a heavy suitcase from the garage and placed it in the bed of his pickup parked in the driveway.
- Officers arrested Velazquez at the garage threshold, brought a drug‑sniffing dog around the truck shortly after arrest, and the dog alerted to the suitcase; the suitcase was opened and found to contain ~11.9 kg of cocaine.
- Velazquez moved to suppress the seized evidence and his statements, arguing the dog sniff and search invaded the curtilage in violation of Jardines and that Payton barred a warrantless arrest at the garage threshold.
- The district court found the officer saw Velazquez lift a weighty suitcase, concluded there was probable cause, and held the automobile exception (per United States v. Hines) or inevitable discovery justified admitting the evidence.
- On appeal the government defended the search by (1) good‑faith reliance on controlling circuit precedent (Hines), (2) exigent‑circumstances/automobile exception, and (3) inevitable discovery; the Seventh Circuit affirmed based on officers’ objectively reasonable reliance on Hines.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether automobile exception permits warrantless search of vehicle parked on residential driveway/curtilage | Velazquez: automobile exception does not apply on curtilage (cites Jardines and Beene) | Government: Hines controls; probable cause allowed vehicle search | Court: Did not reach curtilage question; affirmed because officers acted in good‑faith reliance on Hines |
| Lawfulness of warrantless arrest at garage threshold | Velazquez: Payton forbids warrantless entry/arrest at home absent exigency | Government: Santana and related precedent permit arrest at threshold when exposed to public view | Court: Arrest lawful; Velazquez did not contest probable cause and Santana supports arrest at threshold |
| Validity of dog sniff/search after arrest (curtilage intrusion) | Velazquez: Jardines forbids bringing drug dog onto curtilage without warrant | Government: Officers relied on circuit precedent (Hines) and had probable cause | Court: Even if Collins later cast doubt on Hines, officers’ objectively reasonable good‑faith reliance on Hines precludes suppression |
| Application of inevitable discovery doctrine | Velazquez: Government failed to prove inevitability | Government: Alternatively argued evidence would be inevitably discovered | Court: Declined to rely on inevitable discovery; affirmed on good‑faith reliance ground only |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Hines, 449 F.3d 808 (7th Cir. 2006) (upheld automobile exception for vehicle parked on private driveway when officers had probable cause)
- Collins v. Virginia, 138 S. Ct. 1663 (2018) (automobile exception does not permit warrantless intrusion into a home's curtilage to search a vehicle)
- Florida v. Jardines, 569 U.S. 1 (2013) (bringing a drug‑sniffing dog onto the curtilage to investigate the home is a search under the Fourth Amendment)
- Davis v. United States, 564 U.S. 229 (2011) (exclusionary rule does not apply when officers reasonably rely on binding precedent later overruled)
- United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 (1984) (good‑faith exception to exclusionary rule for evidence obtained in objective reliance on a warrant)
- Santana v. United States, 427 U.S. 38 (1976) (warrantless arrest permitted at the threshold when the suspect is exposed to public view and touch)