The Georgia Court of Appeals has affirmed a lower court’s decision to suppress evidence seized from James Willie West’s apartment, ruling that using a drug-sniffing dog directly against his front door seal constituted an unconstitutional search. The ruling hinges on the idea that while police can generally use dogs in common areas of an apartment complex, aiming the dog at the threshold of a private residence to detect what is inside violates a resident’s reasonable expectation of privacy.
West was facing serious charges, including trafficking in cocaine, possession of marijuana with intent to distribute, and various firearm offenses. Before trial, West moved to suppress all evidence, arguing that the warrantless drug-sniffing operation outside his apartment—which led to a search warrant—was illegal under the Fourth Amendment.
The trial court agreed with West, finding that the dog sniff violated his privacy regarding the contents of his home. Furthermore, the judge determined that without the dog’s positive alert, the information presented to secure the search warrant wasn’t strong enough to establish probable cause. The State appealed this decision.
Appellate Court Upholds Suppression Ruling
In its review, the Court of Appeals emphasized the deference owed to the trial judge, who acts as the finder of fact. The appellate court must accept the trial court’s factual findings unless they are clearly wrong, and construe the evidence in favor of upholding the trial court’s judgment.
The facts presented showed that investigators had been watching West since December 2023 based on a tip that he might be a “money courier” for drug cartels. Surveillance captured what agents believed were hand-to-hand narcotics transactions in parking lots. Later, officers observed West handing a duffel bag—believed to contain bulk currency—to another individual.
The critical event occurred on January 11, 2024, when law enforcement, with management permission, brought a K-9 named Brutus to the apartment complex. Brutus was brought within one foot of West’s front door, and the dog allegedly sniffed the entire seal of the door, eventually alerting by sitting down directly in front of it.
Based on this alert, combined with other information (including testimony about money laundering provided by a confidential informant that was not included in the written affidavit), officers obtained a search warrant. The subsequent search uncovered drugs and firearms.
The Distinction Between Common Area and Threshold
The core of the dispute was the location and action of the drug dog. The trial court made a crucial distinction: it ruled that using the dog in the common breezeway—where management gave permission—was permissible because residents generally lack a reasonable expectation of privacy in those common areas.
However, the trial court found that directing K-9 Brutus to specifically sniff the *entire seal* of West’s apartment door to probe the contents within his home crossed a constitutional boundary.
The State argued on appeal that since they had permission to use the dog in the common area, the sniff should have been legal, distinguishing this case from rulings involving traditional single-family home porches.
The Court of Appeals dismissed the State’s argument, noting that the trial court had *not* ruled that the mere presence of the dog in the common area was the problem. Instead, the trial court zeroed in on the targeted sniff of the door seal itself—an action designed to reveal the contents of the home.
Citing established precedent, including the Supreme Court’s ruling in *Jardines* (which dealt with a porch sniff) and *Kyllo* (which barred thermal imaging without a warrant), the Court of Appeals affirmed that when law enforcement uses a device (like a trained dog) to gain information about the interior of a home that would otherwise require physical intrusion, it violates the Fourth Amendment absent a warrant.
Because the trial court correctly determined that the dog sniff violated West’s reasonable expectation of privacy in his home and that the remaining evidence in the affidavit and testimony was insufficient to establish probable cause, the initial suppression order stands. The evidence seized from the apartment must therefore be excluded from trial.