State v. Kono

Summary

Justice Espinosa dissents from the majority’s conclusion that police use of a drug-sniffing dog in the shared hallway of a condominium constituted a search under article first, § 7, of the Connecticut Constitution. The dissent argues that a canine sniff is distinct from advanced surveillance technology under Kyllo and that the shared hallway was not curtilage under Florida v. Jardines.

Holdings

1. In the dissent's view, the police did not conduct a search of the defendant's condominium unit because a dog sniff reveals only the presence or absence of contraband and occurred in a shared common area rather than inside the unit or its protected curtilage.
2. The dissent would hold that Kyllo's rule concerning sophisticated sense-enhancing technology does not apply to a trained police dog.
3. The dissent would hold that the shared hallway immediately outside the defendant's condominium unit is not curtilage, so Jardines does not apply.

Questions Presented

1. Whether a police dog's sniff of odors emanating from a condominium unit into a shared hallway constitutes a search under the Fourth Amendment or article first, § 7, of the Connecticut Constitution.
2. Whether the shared hallway area immediately outside the defendant's condominium unit constitutes curtilage under Florida v. Jardines.
3. Whether a trained police dog should be treated like sophisticated sense-enhancing technology under Kyllo v. United States.