VA: Jardines not retroactive on state habeas review

Defendant’s conviction was final ten months before Jardines was decided by SCOTUS. “Therefore, because the controlling legal landscape when Oprisko’s conviction became final did not dictate that use of a drug-sniffing dog within the curtilage of private property was a search within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment, and neither of the exceptions recognized in Teague applies, the habeas court did not err in ruling that Jardines did not apply retroactively to Oprisko’s conviction.”
Oprisko v. Dir. of the Dep’t of Corr., 2017 Va. LEXIS 4 (Feb. 9, 2017).

This entry was posted in Dog sniff. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.