ILNews

COA: Dog sniff requires reasonable suspicion

Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Analyzing the issue for the first time, the Indiana Court of Appeals today determined reasonable suspicion is needed to conduct a drug-detecting dog sniff of a private residence. Even though the state didn't argue the police had reasonable suspicion, it established the officers relied on the warrant executed after the sniff in good faith.

In Jonathon Hoop v. State of Indiana,  No. 49A02-0807-CR-666, Jonathon Hoop argued his rights under the Fourth Amendment and Article I, Section 11 of the Indiana Constitution were violated when police used a dog to sniff around the front door of his home to detect drugs.

The dog sniff came after a confidential informant told Sgt. Jason Bradbury of the Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Department that Hoop was growing marijuana in his Beech Grove home. A check of public utility records showed Hoop was using more electricity than previous occupants.

Based on the dog's behavior during the drug sniff, Bradbury applied for a search warrant of the home. The searched turned up numerous marijuana plants, bags of marijuana, a digital scale, cash, and firearms. Hoop was charged with Class D felony dealing in marijuana and Class D felony possession of marijuana. His motion to suppress evidence was denied, resulting in this interlocutory appeal.

Hoop relied on United States v. Thomas, 757 F.2d 1359 (2d Cir. 1985), to argue the dog sniff is a search within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment. But the 2nd Circuit's ruling that a canine sniff of a residence may constitute an unreasonable search has been criticized by numerous jurisdictions and goes against the United States Supreme Court ruling in U.S. v. Place, 462 U.S. 696 (1983), wrote Judge Melissa May.

As long as an officer is lawfully on the premises, he or she may have a dog sniff the residence without implicating the Fourth Amendment. As such, the police could go to Hoop's front door using the walkway that would ordinarily be used by any visitor. The dog sniff alone was reasonable enough to establish probable cause and validate the warrant under the Fourth Amendment, wrote the judge.

The Court of Appeals hadn't considered the validity of a warrant based on a dog sniff of a residence under the Indiana Constitution. Hoop claimed his case is similar to Litchfield v. State, 824 N.E.2d 356, 359, (Ind. 2005), which required reasonable suspicion to search a trash can; the state countered that a dog sniff only reveals the presence of or absence of contraband and doesn't reveal private details.

"As Litchfield placed overriding weight on the need to restrict arbitrary selection of persons to be searched, and that same concern is present here, we conclude reasonable suspicion is needed to conduct a dog sniff of a private residence," she wrote.

The state failed to address whether the confidential informant's tip and the information about Hoop's power usage established reasonable suspicion, but it argued the officers relied on the warrant in good faith. Because the officers relied on the warrant in good faith, the Court of Appeals didn't decide whether the officers had reasonable suspicion.

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Actually, and most strikingly, the ruling failed to address the central issue to the whole case: Namely, Black Knight/LPS, who was NEVER a party to the State court litigation, and who is under a 2013 consent judgment in Indiana (where it has stipulated to the forgery of loan documents, the ones specifically at issue in my case)never disclosed itself in State court or remediated the forged loan documents as was REQUIRED of them by the CJ. In essence, what the court is willfully ignoring, is that it is setting a precedent that the supplier of a defective product, one whom is under a consent judgment stipulating to such, and under obligation to remediate said defective product, can: 1.) Ignore the CJ 2.) Allow counsel to commit fraud on the state court 3.) Then try to hide behind Rooker Feldman doctrine as a bar to being held culpable in federal court. The problem here is the court is in direct conflict with its own ruling(s) in Johnson v. Pushpin Holdings & Iqbal- 780 F.3d 728, at 730 “What Johnson adds - what the defendants in this suit have failed to appreciate—is that federal courts retain jurisdiction to award damages for fraud that imposes extrajudicial injury. The Supreme Court drew that very line in Exxon Mobil ... Iqbal alleges that the defendants conducted a racketeering enterprise that predates the state court’s judgments ...but Exxon Mobil shows that the Rooker Feldman doctrine asks what injury the plaintiff asks the federal court to redress, not whether the injury is “intertwined” with something else …Because Iqbal seeks damages for activity that (he alleges) predates the state litigation and caused injury independently of it, the Rooker-Feldman doctrine does not block this suit. It must be reinstated.” So, as I already noted to others, I now have the chance to bring my case to SCOTUS; the ruling by Wood & Posner is flawed on numerous levels,BUT most troubling is the fact that the authors KNOW it's a flawed ruling and choose to ignore the flaws for one simple reason: The courts have decided to agree with former AG Eric Holder that national banks "Are too big to fail" and must win at any cost-even that of due process, case precedent, & the truth....Let's see if SCOTUS wants a bite at the apple.

  2. I am in NJ & just found out that there is a judgment against me in an action by Driver's Solutions LLC in IN. I was never served with any Court pleadings, etc. and the only thing that I can find out is that they were using an old Staten Island NY address for me. I have been in NJ for over 20 years and cannot get any response from Drivers Solutions in IN. They have a different lawyer now. I need to get this vacated or stopped - it is now almost double & at 18%. Any help would be appreciated. Thank you.

  3. I am in NJ & just found out that there is a judgment against me in an action by Driver's Solutions LLC in IN. I was never served with any Court pleadings, etc. and the only thing that I can find out is that they were using an old Staten Island NY address for me. I have been in NJ for over 20 years and cannot get any response from Drivers Solutions in IN. They have a different lawyer now. I need to get this vacated or stopped - it is now almost double & at 18%. Any help would be appreciated. Thank you.

  4. Please I need help with my class action lawsuits, im currently in pro-se and im having hard time findiNG A LAWYER TO ASSIST ME

  5. Access to the court (judiciary branch of government) is the REAL problem, NOT necessarily lack of access to an attorney. Unfortunately, I've lived in a legal and financial hell for the past six years due to a divorce (where I was, supposedly, represented by an attorney) in which I was defrauded of settlement and the other party (and helpers) enriched through the fraud. When I attempted to introduce evidence and testify (pro se) in a foreclosure/eviction, I was silenced (apparently on procedural grounds, as research I've done since indicates). I was thrown out of a residence which was to be sold, by a judge who refused to allow me to speak in (the supposedly "informal") small claims court where the eviction proceeding (by ex-brother-in-law) was held. Six years and I can't even get back on solid or stable ground ... having bank account seized twice, unlawfully ... and now, for the past year, being dragged into court - again, contrary to law and appellate decisions - by former attorney, who is trying to force payment from exempt funds. Friday will mark fifth appearance. Hopefully, I'll be allowed to speak. The situation I find myself in shouldn't even be possible, much less dragging out with no end in sight, for years. I've done nothing wrong, but am watching a lot of wrong being accomplished under court jurisdiction; only because I was married to someone who wanted and was granted a divorce (but was not willing to assume the responsibilities that come with granting the divorce). In fact, the recalcitrant party was enriched by well over $100k, although it was necessarily split with other actors. Pro bono help? It's a nice dream ... but that's all it is, for too many. Meanwhile, injustice marches on.

ADVERTISEMENT