In 2019, Eric Johnson, a resident in a multi-unit apartment building, was arrested for drug and firearm offenses after a drug detection dog sniffed the lower seam of Johnson’s front door without a warrant or Johnson’s knowledge. This gave the officers probable cause to enter the apartment and conduct a comprehensive search.

After Johnson was convicted, he appealed, arguing that the sniff of his front door constituted an impermissible warrantless search. The Fourth Circuit disagreed with his appeal, and Johnson is now seeking a Supreme Court review of his case, for which the Cato Institute scholars filed an amicus brief in support of his petition. In a recent blog post, the Director of the Cato Institute’s Project on Criminal Justice, Matthew Cavedon, argues:

“The Fourth Circuit’s opinion would deny curtilage protections to anyone whose home happens to share halls and walls with others. But homes under a common roof should enjoy the same Fourth Amendment protections as those beneath their own eaves. And the people who live within apartment homes, whether due to the accidents of life or the realities of need, are no less entitled to constitutional privacy than are householders. The Supreme Court should grant review and reverse.”

To speak with Cavedon further on the brief filed in Johnson v. United States and Fourth Amendment protections, contact Christopher Tarvardian.