U.S. v. Whitacker

In prosecution on drug and firearm charge, Dist. Ct. erred in denying defendant’s motion to suppress drugs and firearm seized from his apartment, where said seizure occurred after police had obtained permission from apartment property manager to enter locked hallway, and where drug dog alerted to presence of drugs while standing in front of defendant’s apartment door. Holding in Jardines, 133 S.Ct. 1409 (i.e, use of trained police dog to investigate home and its immediate surroundings was search under 4^th Amendment that required warrant) applied to hallway outside defendant’s apartment door because police used dog for purpose of gathering incriminating forensic evidence. Moreover, suppression was required because police could not, without warrant, bring “super-sensitive” instrument in form of trained dog to detect objects and activities that they could not perceive without its help. Also, good-faith exception to exclusionary rule did not apply.