IN: Pre-Jardines dog sniff of front door suppressed

Defendant had an interlocutory appeal of a search issue, and law of the case controls that. Jardines was, however, decided one month after the appeal, and defendant can raise it on appeal now because it was preserved, and it controls. “Although the officers had a license to approach Perez’s porch and front door to conduct a knock-and-talk, they did not have a similar license to conduct a warrantless search there, with a dog or otherwise. Consent to talk at one’s door does not provide consent to search the curtilage of one’s home. See id. at 1416. ‘The scope of a license—express or implied—is limited not only to a particular area but also to a specific purpose.’ Id. Thus, we hold that the warrantless canine sniff of Perez’s front door physically intruded onto the curtilage of his home and, therefore, was an unconstitutional search in violation of the Fourth Amendment.” Perez v. State, 2015 Ind. App. LEXIS 145 (March 11, 2015).

Defense counsel was not ineffective for not raising a Franks challenge based on what defendant proffered in the 2255. It was nothing more than a desire to cross examine that didn’t undermine the witness. The search issue was appealed; this was just another spin on it. United States v. Erickson, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 182721 (N.D.Fla. September 8, 2014).*

An airport encounter at LAX ended up as consensual searches of luggage. The search of defendant’s car in Pennsylvania was valid based on his abandonment: flight from it leaving the engine running. United States v. Mooty, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 30092 (E.D. Pa. March 10, 2015).*