By: Derek Hawkins//April 18, 2016//
By: Derek Hawkins//April 18, 2016//
7th Circuit Court of Appeals
Case Name: United States of America v. Lonnie Whitaker
Case No.: 14-3290; 14-3506
Officials: WOOD, Chief Judge, HAMILTON, Circuit Judge, and DARRAH, District Judge
Focus: Search and Seizure – Use of Drug Detecting Dog – Motion to Suppress
Motion to suppress denial is reversed
“The use of a drug-sniffing dog here clearly invaded reasonable privacy expectations, as explained in Justice Kagan’s concurring opinion in Jardines. The police in Jardines could reasonably and lawfully walk up to the front door of the house in that case to knock on the door and ask to speak to the residents. The police were not entitled, however, to bring a “super-sensitive instrument” to detect objects and activities that they could not perceive without its help. 133 S. Ct. at 1418. The police could not stand on the front porch and look inside with binoculars or put a stethoscope to the door to listen. Similarly, they could not bring the super-sensitive dog to detect objects or activities inside the home. As Justice Kagan explained, viewed through a privacy lens, Jardines was controlled by Kyllo, which held that police officers conducted a search by using a thermal-imaging device to detect heat emanating from within the home, even without trespassing on the property. 133 S. Ct. at 1419.”
Reversed denial of Motion to Suppress and Remanded