A dog sniff at an apartment door from a common hallway was reasonable, even if the hallway also had a locked door. \u201cFollowing the reasoning in Penaloza-Romero and Peck, and applying the Dunn factors, I find that the area around Defendant’s door is not curtilage under Eighth Circuit law and Jardines. While the first Dunn factor weighs in favor of a finding of curtilage, the remaining factors do not. The area around Defendant’s door was not surrounded by an enclosure (contrary to Defendant’s argument that the building itself constitutes an enclosure, I do not believe that the building itself is the type of enclosure contemplated by the concept of curtilage). The body camera video supports that the apartment door was not used for anything other than entering and exiting the apartment. Finally, while the exterior to the building was locked to passersby, the hallway and landings were open and used by other tenants, visitors, and apartment management. Accordingly, I find that the dog sniff was not illegal under the Jardines line of cases.\u201d United States v. Copeland, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 118988 (N.D. Iowa July 8, 2024).<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201cBroussard’s counsel was not deficient for failing to challenge the ruling on Broussard’s suppression motion. No reasonable attorney could present Broussard’s flawed reading of the law on appeal and the search warrants were supported by ample probable cause. This argument would not have been \u2018plainly stronger\u2019 than the evidentiary issue that appellate counsel raised on appeal.\u201d United States v. Broussard, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 118834 (D. Minn. July 8, 2024).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
A dog sniff at an apartment door from a common hallway was reasonable, even if the hallway also had a locked door. \u201cFollowing the reasoning in Penaloza-Romero and Peck, and applying the Dunn factors, I find that the area around … Continue reading