United States v. Hopkins, No. 15-3579 (8th Cir. 2016)
Annotate this CaseDefendant appealed the district court's denial of his motion to suppress evidence under Florida v. Jardines, and to strike a portion of the presentence report. In this case, the court concluded that the area immediately in front of defendant's door - where the dog sniff occurred - was also curtilage. The court concluded that the officer had no license to have the dog enter the curtilage and sniff the door. Therefore, the dog sniff violated Jardines, and the warrant application was not otherwise supported by probable cause. However, because the good faith exception to the exclusionary rule applies in this case, the district court did not err in denying defendant's motion to suppress the evidence from the search of the apartment. Furthermore, the district court did not err in denying defendant's motion to suppress the gun and drugs found on his person. Finally, the court rejected defendant's contention that the district court should have stricken the statements in the presentence report identifying him as a gang member where the district court did not use the statements in making its decision and did not violate due process. Accordingly, the court affirmed the conviction and sentence.
Court Description: Murphy, Author, with Wollman and Beam, Circuit Judges] Criminal case - Criminal law. Drug dog sniff at defendant's front door violated Florida v. Jardines, 133 S. Ct. 1409 (2013); however, the good faith exception set out in U.S. v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 (1984) applied and the district court did not err in denying defendant's motion to suppress the evidence found during the search of his apartment; officers had reasonable suspicion to stop defendant outside the apartment and conduct a pat down search, and the gun and drugs found on his person were admissible; the district court made no use of the PSR's statements concerning gang membership and Rule 32 did not require the statements to be stricken.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.