United States v. Eric Johnson

Johnson · United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · August 5, 2025 · No. 23-4255

Summary

This Fourth Circuit opinion addresses whether a warrantless drug-detection dog sniff conducted in a common hallway outside an apartment door constitutes a search under the Fourth Amendment. The court held that the sniff did not violate the defendant's reasonable expectation of privacy because it only reveals contraband, and it did not intrude on protected curtilage because the hallway is common property over which the tenant lacks a right to exclude others. The judgment of the district court denying the motion to suppress was affirmed.

Court
United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Writing for the Court
Pamela Harris; Richardson; Heytens
Jurisdiction
United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Decision date
August 5, 2025
Docket number
23-4255
Procedural posture
Johnson appealed his federal convictions and sentence, challenging the denial of his motion to suppress evidence obtained after a warrantless narcotics-detection dog sniff at his apartment door.
Standard of review
The court reviewed the district court's legal determinations de novo and its factual findings for clear error, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the government because the suppression motion was denied.
Precedential value
Published and precedential
Parties
Eric Tyrell Johnson, a/k/a E v. United States of America
Disposition
affirmed

Topics

fourth amendmentsearch and seizuresuppression of evidencecriminal procedure

Practice areas

criminal procedureconstitutional lawsearch and seizure

Questions Presented

  1. Whether a warrantless narcotics-detection dog sniff at the door of an apartment in a common hallway violated the Fourth Amendment under the reasonable-expectation-of-privacy test.
  2. Whether the dog sniff constituted a Fourth Amendment search because officers physically intruded on protected curtilage immediately outside the apartment door.

Holdings

  1. A narcotics-detection dog sniff at the door of Johnson's apartment did not violate a reasonable expectation of privacy because the sniff could reveal only the presence or absence of illegal narcotics, in which there is no legitimate privacy interest.
  2. The common hallway immediately outside Johnson's apartment door was not protected curtilage, so conducting the dog sniff there was not a Fourth Amendment search.

Key quotations

An unlicensed intrusion into that constitutionally protected area to gather evidence, the Court held, is a “search” for Fourth Amendment purposes. (10)
We hold only that on the facts as found by the district court and disputed by neither party, the police did not intrude on Fourth Amendment-protected curtilage when they conducted a dog sniff in the common hallway just outside Johnson’s apartment door. (15)

Factual background

Law enforcement investigating a suspected fentanyl and heroin trafficking organization suspected that Johnson was trafficking drugs from Apartment 201 in a large multi-unit apartment complex. With building management's permission, officers entered the building and conducted a warrantless free-air scan with a certified drug-detection dog at the apartment's front door in a common hallway. The dog alerted near the lower door seam, and officers relied in part on that alert to obtain a search warrant; the ensuing search uncovered drugs, a handgun, ammunition, cash, cell phones, and other evidence of drug dealing.

Procedural history

A federal grand jury indicted Johnson for conspiracy to distribute fentanyl and heroin, possession with intent to distribute fentanyl and heroin, and unlawful possession of a firearm and ammunition. The United States District Court for the District of Maryland denied his motion to suppress, concluding that the dog sniff was not a Fourth Amendment search. Johnson proceeded to trial, was convicted on all counts, and was sentenced to 150 months in prison. The Fourth Circuit affirmed.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…