Supreme Court Has The Chance To Extend Fourth Amendment Protections To Apartment Residents

from the let's-hope-they-do dept

If all goes well, we may end up with a little more Fourth Amendment here in the USA. The Supreme Court is currently considering reviewing a case that will more clearly define what Fourth Amendment implications cops' four-legged friends bring to the (search) party.

A Minnesota state supreme court case (Edstrom v. Minnesota [PDF]) dealing with a K-9's door sniff in an apartment hallway is up for review by the nation's highest court. The state court found in favor of the government, stating that a K-9 sniff only needs reasonable suspicion to comply with the Fourth Amendment and state's own Constitution.

Should we expect a higher standard for dog sniffs? One would think so, considering cops already refer to K-9s as "probable cause on four legs." The Supreme Court recognized in the Rodriguez decision that artificially prolonging pretextual traffic stops solely for the purpose of developing probable cause -- in many cases waiting for a drug dog to arrive at the stop -- violated the Fourth Amendment.

More captive audiences -- residents in their own homes -- shouldn't be treated to a lower standard just because they're never technically "free to go." An apartment resident can't demand officers leave publicly-accessible areas and they certainly can't just pack up their place and leave just because law enforcement doesn't have probable cause to perform a search. But officers can troll hallways with drug dogs based on only the hunch that something illegal may be occurring out of sight.

Drug dogs are trained to do only one thing: detect the odor of drugs. When they alert, officers then have probable cause to effect a search of residence. Limited searches then can be performed without a warrant under the theory that evidence may be destroyed if the residence is not secured while a warrant is obtained.

The home is supposed to be afforded the utmost in Fourth Amendment protections. But when a drug dog is involved, much of that heightened protection dissipates, replaced with non-verbal statements from an animal that can easily be triggered by nothing more than the dog's desire to please its handler. You can't cross-examine a dog to determine its trustworthiness or state of mind. All you can do is hope there's enough failure on the record to call into question the sniff's veracity and that sort of evidence is almost impossible to obtain.

Whether or not the Supreme Court decides to take this case largely depends on how the justices feel about the Jardines decision. In 2013, the Court ruled that taking a drug dog onto a person's porch to sniff for drugs was a search under the Fourth Amendment. But a lot of that reasoning relies on the definition of curtilage. For distinct homes, the privacy begins at the end of the driveway -- something further defined in 2018's Collins decision. In that case, the court held that the Fourth Amendment was violated when the officer entered an open carport to look at an allegedly stolen motorcycle.

But curtilage isn't so easily defined in shared spaces like apartment buildings. Officers can traverse halls just like residents can, provided the common spaces aren't otherwise secured with keypads or card entry. And if they can be in the hall, they can certainly take their dogs in with them. This is gray area the court hasn't directly addressed, and if it refuses to do so in this case, it allows the Fourth Amendment to be applied unequally. Zero protection for common areas that provide access to residents' doors (and their residences beyond) makes the Fourth Amendment a rich (or richer) man's protection, leaving those unable to purchase or rent their own home subject to the whims of police officers and their dogs.

Hide this

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: 4th amendment, apartments, edstrom, renters, supreme court

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

  1. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 25 Jan 2019 @ 1:13pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Let's perhaps break this down, since we're clearly talking past each other.

    1. Living spaces: the interior of a house, or the interior of an apartment. No member of the public, police, or anyone else can enter unless specifically invited or otherwise allowed for by law (warrant-in-hand, exigent circumstances i.e. firefighters during a fire).

    2. Exterior areas of a house: most areas off-limits to public (grass, landscaping, etc). Driveways, walking paths and porches in the front of the house are exceptions. Unless otherwise notified (e.g. by gating or signs prohibiting access) members of the public can use these to specifically attempt to contact the resident, or to deliver materials to them. USPS has special dispensation to ignore signs if the mailbox is not otherwise accessible. Police can also use these areas to approach the door in an effort to contact the resident (same as members of the public, have slightly greater leeway to ignore signs). However, the Supreme Court ruled that said right to walk to the door does not include the right to bring drug dogs to the door.

    3. Common areas in apartments: Public is not allowed to freely enter these areas. The public can enter in attempts to contact or deliver materials to specific residents (if not barred from doing so by gates or signs). In fact, unless specifically expanded by the landlord, the rights of the public to access apartment building hallways are identical to the rights of the public to access driveways/front porches of a house. Similarly, the police do not have the right to indiscriminately wander the hallways, they can only enter them in order to contact a specific resident.

    The difference between 2 and 3 is only in the treatment of "additional" searches by the police, where in 2 the police's right to approach the door does not include the right to approach it with a dog, whereas in 3 it does. Otherwise, the rights of both the police and the public are identical between 2 and 3. The "end of the driveway" rule doesn't apply not because there is a fundamental difference in the public/private nature of the space, but simply because the court has ruled no drug dogs on porches, but hasn't ruled about drug dogs in hallways.

Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Subscribe to the Techdirt Daily newsletter

Comment Options:

  • Use markdown. Use plain text.
  • Remember name/email/url (set a cookie)

Follow Techdirt
Special Affiliate Offer

Essential Reading
Techdirt Insider Chat
Recent Stories

This site, like most other sites on the web, uses cookies. For more information, see our privacy policy. Got it

Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.