State V. Edstrom: No Warrant Needed for Minnesota Police to Conduct a Dog Sniff Outside Your Apartment
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
University of St. Thomas Law Journal Volume 16 Issue 2 Who Decides? Picking Judges in the Article 7 21st Century April 2020 State v. Edstrom: No Warrant Needed for Minnesota Police to Conduct a Dog Sniff Outside Your Apartment Stephen Grego Follow this and additional works at: https://ir.stthomas.edu/ustlj Part of the Constitutional Law Commons, Criminal Law Commons, Criminal Procedure Commons, and the Supreme Court of the United States Commons Recommended Citation Stephen Grego, State v. Edstrom: No Warrant Needed for Minnesota Police to Conduct a Dog Sniff Outside Your Apartment, 16 U. ST. THOMAS L.J. 297 (2020). Available at: https://ir.stthomas.edu/ustlj/vol16/iss2/7 This Comment is brought to you for free and open access by UST Research Online and the University of St. Thomas Law Journal. For more information, please contact [email protected]. \\jciprod01\productn\U\UST\16-2\UST207.txt unknown Seq: 1 16-APR-20 15:44 COMMENT STATE V. EDSTROM: NO WARRANT NEEDED FOR MINNESOTA POLICE TO CONDUCT A DOG SNIFF OUTSIDE YOUR APARTMENT STEPHEN GREGO* INTRODUCTION ................................................... 297 R I. DOG-SNIFF CASE LAW IN MINNESOTA PRIOR TO EDSTROM . 298 R A. State v. Wiegand ..................................... 299 R B. State v. Carter ....................................... 302 R C. State v. Davis ........................................ 305 R II. THE EDSTROM CASE ...................................... 309 R A. Facts ................................................ 309 R B. Procedural History ................................... 311 R C. The Court of Appeals’ Decision ...................... 311 R D. The Minnesota Supreme Court’s Decision ............. 314 R III. AFTER EDSTROM ......................................... 320 R A. Analyzing Edstrom ................................... 320 R B. Future Implications ................................... 323 R CONCLUSION..................................................... 327 R INTRODUCTION Historically, law enforcement has worked closely with dogs to investi- gate suspected criminal activity.1 This close relationship has evolved into the use of drug-detection dogs to assist in narcotics investigations. Each year, state and federal law enforcement agencies conduct many dog sniffs in * Juris Doctor, 2019, University of St. Thomas School of Law. The views expressed are solely the author’s and do not reflect his work as a law clerk or the views of the Minnesota Judicial Branch. Thank you to Scott Swanson, Matthew Hough, and the University of St. Thomas Law Journal for your assistance in preparing this comment. 1. Charles F. Sloane, Dogs in War, Police Work and on Patrol, 46 J. CRIM. L. & CRIMINOL- OGY 385, 388–89 (1955–56); see also Irus Braverman, Passing the Sniff Test: Police Dogs as Surveillance Technology, 61 BUFF. L. REV. 81, 124–28 (2013) (discussing humans’ use of dogs in warfare and as law enforcement partners). 297 \\jciprod01\productn\U\UST\16-2\UST207.txt unknown Seq: 2 16-APR-20 15:44 298 UNIVERSITY OF ST. THOMAS LAW JOURNAL [Vol. 16:2 search of illegal drugs.2 The longstanding pairing of law enforcement and their loyal canines has changed policing throughout the United States.3 As the decriminalization of certain drug offenses garners increased national at- tention, the utility of this police practice will come under greater scrutiny. In State v. Edstrom,4 the Minnesota Supreme Court addressed the pro- priety of a warrantless dog sniff of an apartment door in a common hallway of a secured residential building. Considering the question in the wake of the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Florida v. Jardines,5 a di- vided Supreme Court declined to grant tenants either a property right or reasonable expectation of privacy in the area immediately next to their apartment door.6 The court’s reasoning has important implications for te- nants, criminal lawyers, and law enforcement actors. This comment discusses the importance of the Minnesota Supreme Court’s Edstrom decision in the criminal procedure arena. Part I presents a survey of relevant Minnesota dog sniff case law before Edstrom. Part II analyzes Edstrom in detail, including the facts, procedural posture, and the opinions of both the Minnesota Court of Appeals and Minnesota Supreme Court. Part III analyzes the Edstrom decision and discusses its importance given current societal sentiment toward the policing of narcotics. I. DOG-SNIFF CASE LAW IN MINNESOTA PRIOR TO EDSTROM Before the court of appeals’ decision in Edstrom, Minnesota dog-sniff case law lacked clarity.7 Was a dog sniff a search under either the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution or Article I, Section 10 of the Minnesota Constitution? What standard—reasonable suspicion or probable 2. Brief for Texas et al. as Amici Curiae Supporting Petitioner at 2–4, Florida v. Jardines, 569 U.S. 1 (2013) (No. 11-564), http://sblog.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/11- 564-Jardines_Amicus-Brief1.pdf. 3. See Jane Yakowitz Bambauer, How the War on Drugs Distorts Privacy Law, 64 STAN. L. REV. ONLINE 131, 131 (May 9, 2012), http://www.stanfordlawreview.org/online/war-on-drugs- privacy-law. 4. 916 N.W.2d 512, 514 (Minn. 2018), cert denied, 139 S. Ct. 1262, 1262 (2019). One amicus brief—from the Fourth Amendment Scholars in support of Edstrom—was filed with the Minnesota Supreme Court. 5. 569 U.S. 1 (2013). 6. Edstrom, 916 N.W.2d at 524. Before the Jardines decision, a majority of federal courts interpreted past Supreme Court precedent to mean that a dog sniff was never a search. See Jardines v. State, 73 So. 3d 34, 66–68 & nn.15–16 (Fla. 2011) (Polston, J., dissenting) (collecting cases). 7. See State v. Wiegand, 645 N.W.2d 125, 135 (Minn. 2002) (concluding that the use of a narcotics-detection dog to sniff the exterior of motor vehicle during a traffic stop was not a search, but required “reasonable, articulable suspicion of drug-related criminal activity”); see also State v. Carter, 697 N.W.2d 199, 211–12 (Minn. 2005) (finding that a dog sniff outside of a private stor- age unit was a search requiring reasonable suspicion); see also State v. Davis, 732 N.W.2d 173, 183 (Minn. 2007) (holding that police use of a drug-detection dog in the common hallway of an apartment building was a search requiring reasonable suspicion under the Minnesota Constitution). \\jciprod01\productn\U\UST\16-2\UST207.txt unknown Seq: 3 16-APR-20 15:44 2020] STATE v. EDSTROM: NO WARRANT NEEDED 299 cause—did police need before using a narcotics-detection dog?8 The in- quiry often turned on the specific area or item subjected to the dog sniff. This case-specific analysis created confusion, as evidenced by the various decisions before the supreme court’s decision in Edstrom. The most impor- tant of these decisions, State v. Wiegand, State v. Carter, and State v. Davis, are discussed immediately below. The Federal Court of Appeals circuit split following Jardines has also complicated the issue.9 A. State v. Wiegand The first chance for the Minnesota Supreme Court to address the level of suspicion necessary to conduct a dog sniff occurred in the 2002 case of State v. Wiegand. The facts of Wiegand are as follows. At 12:20 a.m., a Cloquet police officer conducted a traffic stop on a vehicle with a burnt-out headlight.10 The officer identified the vehicle’s oc- cupants, and observed that Wiegand, who was driving, had slow and quiet speech, was somewhat nervous, had glossy eyes, and appeared to be shak- ing.11 The two vehicle occupants denied possessing drugs in the vehicle, and the car’s owner refused a request to search the vehicle.12 After more officers arrived on scene, the stopping officer asked an- other officer to issue a warning for an equipment violation while he re- trieved his narcotics-detection dog.13 The stopping officer walked the dog around the vehicle three times.14 Each time, the dog alerted to narcotics near the vehicle’s front passenger side.15 During the search, the officer placed the drug dog inside the vehicle to pinpoint the contraband’s exact location.16 But the dog did not alert to narcotics inside the vehicle and a later search within the vehicle recovered no narcotics.17 The officer han- dling the dog then opened the vehicle’s hood and discovered a plastic bag containing about four ounces of marijuana.18 8. See Brief for Minnesota County Attorneys Association as Amicus Curiae supporting Ap- pellant, State v. Edstrom, 916 N.W.2d 512 (Minn. 2018) (No. A16-1382), 2017 WL 8772617. 9. See Carol A. Chase, Cops, Canines, and Curtilage: What Jardines Teaches and What It Leaves Unanswered, 52 HOUS. L. REV. 1289, 1303–05 (2015) (explaining that most cases decided before Jardines rejected the notion that residents of multidwelling buildings could claim curtilage protection in common areas). 10. Wiegand, 645 N.W.2d at 128. 11. Id. At the later suppression hearing, the stopping officer testified that he did not believe Wiegand was using drugs but did believe he was acting suspiciously during the stop. Id. Addition- ally, the stopping officer testified at the suppression hearing that Wiegand was looking down and failed to talk in the officer’s direction when providing responses. Id. 12. Id. at 128–29. 13. Id. at 129. 14. Id. 15. Id. 16. The record is unclear about whether this occurred before or after the third exterior sniff. Wiegand, 645 N.W.2d at 129. 17. Id. 18. A pat down of Wiegand led to the recovery of additional marijuana and some cocaine. Id. \\jciprod01\productn\U\UST\16-2\UST207.txt unknown Seq: 4 16-APR-20 15:44 300 UNIVERSITY