ND: Jardines and the drug sniffing dog at the door of a house does not apply to an apartment building

Jardines and the drug sniffing dog at the door of a house does not apply to an apartment building because apartments don’t have curtilage. State v. Nguyen, 2013 ND 252, 2013 N.D. LEXIS 258 (December 26, 2013):

[¶10] The locked and secured entrance of Nguyen’s apartment building was designed to provide security for the tenants of the apartment building rather than to provide privacy in the common hallways. See Eisler, 567 F.2d at 816. “An expectation of privacy necessarily implies an expectation that one will be free of any intrusion, not merely unwarranted intrusions.” Id. The common hallways of Nguyen’s apartment building were available for the use of tenants and their guests, the landlord and his agents, and others having legitimate reason to be on the premises. See id. Nguyen could not bar entry to the apartment building. Other tenants of the apartment building had the ability to let in visitors, delivery persons, or other members of the public. Nguyen could not have excluded individuals from the common hallway. That the law enforcement officers were technical trespassers in the common hallways is of no consequence because Nguyen had no reasonable expectation that the common hallways of the apartment building would be free from any intrusion. See id. In this case, we conclude the entry by the law enforcement officers into the common hallways was not a search.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.