D.Minn.: Jardines doesn’t apply to common area of apt. building

Jardines does not apply to an apartment building’s common area. Alternatively, the landlord gave explicit license for them to be there. United States v. Penaloza-Romero, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 142810 (D. Minn. July 25, 2013):

Assuming, arguendo, that the common hallway is a part of the curtilage of the apartment, continuing the analysis reveals that the search was objectively reasonable. Here again Jardines is inapposite. Jardines, based on a trespass theory, addressed whether the officers had an implied license to be on the property. There, the Court reasoned that an implied license would permit law enforcement to approach a home, knock, and then depart, but it would not permit bringing a police dog to sniff for incriminating evidence. Jardines, 133 S. Ct. at 1415-16. But the situation in this case does not involve an implied license. Instead, the officers were in the apartment building’s common hallway pursuant to the building manager’s explicit license. The officers said they would like to enter to perform a dog sniff, and the manager consented. As the manager of the complex, he has both a right of access to the common hallway of the building and the authority to allow the officers to walk through it. See United States v. Kelly, 551 F.2d 760, 763 (8th Cir. 1997) (finding a seizure reasonable because an apartment manager has a degree of control over common areas and can permit law enforcement to access them). Because the building manager let law enforcement into the building and had the authority to do so, the officers were there lawfully. This being so, there was no trespass and no Fourth Amendment violation under Jardines.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.