The dog sniff at defendant\u2019s apartment door was valid under Eighth Circuit precedent, so, despite Jardines, Davis good faith validates this sniff. United States v. Davis, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 54130 (N.D. Iowa April 16, 2013):<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
In this case, for the reasons more fully stated in the Report and Recommendation, the court finds that the conduct of Officers Warner and Gilson was “‘close enough to the line of validity to make [Officer Warner’s] belief in the validity of the warrant objectively reasonable.'” Id. (quoting Conner, 127 F.3d at 667). Officers Warner and Gilson could have reasonably believed that the dog sniff at the door to Apartment 5 was lawful in light of the Eighth Circuit’s decision in United States v. Scott, 610 F.3d 1009 (8th Cir. 2010). In Scott, the Eighth Circuit held that a dog “sniff of [an] apartment door frame from a common hallway did not constitute a search subject to the Fourth Amendment.” Id. at 1016. Although the Supreme Court’s decision in Florida v. Jardines, No. 11-564, ___ U.S. ___, 2013 WL 1196577 (Mar. 26, 2013),2may call into question the validity of Scott, the Supreme Court decided Jardines after the conduct at issue in this case. Thus, Officers Warner and Gilson could have reasonably believed that their conduct was lawful. See Davis v. United States, ___ U.S. ___, ___, 131 S. Ct. 2419, 2423-24 (2011) (“[S]earches conducted in objectively reasonable reliance on binding appellate precedent are not subject to the exclusionary rule.”); see also United States v. Tschacher, 687 F.3d 923, 933 (8th Cir. 2012) (same).<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Back to blog<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
b2evALnk.b2WPAutP Continue reading