rush probable cause and mr lindsey was convicted of unlawful possession with intent to deliver heroin within a thousand feet of a school and sentenced to seven years in prison his conviction was based on evidence their hotel room that they do in a home or in an apartment and it's also sad old that the dog sniff of the front door of a residence is a search under the fourth amendment here we have a target that police conducted a dog sniff of one thirty which they believe defendant was defendant's room with a positive alert now at the motions hearing officer pea who had conducted the partner testified that the dog sniffed the hall and then alerted to room one thirty but on cross examination officer p d out of mets that the dog enters the alcove which goes to entrances for both rooms one thirty and one thirty one and then alerts to the odor of narcotics officer pea then directs the dog to show him to narrow it down to see where it's coming from the dog then sniff defendants hotel room door and alerts this was a targeted sniff of the defendant's hotel room door and it was a search that violated defendants reasonable expectation of privacy under the fourth amendment supreme court held that you had a fourth amendment search when the government used to censor hanssen tool in that case it was her mo imaging technology it's generally not available to the public and they were able to see inside defendants just taken of him that it was the same thing that you're using a sense unhandsome tool so look at the internet activities of the home that was a key idea in cairo the court rejected the idea that you would parse out which activities were the intimate activities  active it is inside a home and some activities when the government is using a tool not available to the general public to see inside and in this case when the government directed the dog's name of the hotel room door the dog here the police would not have known that the order was specifically coming from room one thirty without directing the dog to sniff and to show the officer and narrow it down the police needed individual eyes probable cause to do that doesn't have an absolute right to exclude people from the hall didn't mean defendant didn't have a reasonable expectation of privacy that the police would not snoop in his hall into his apartment using a exactly what we have here you not you have beyond a sniff of the hall you have a targeted sniff of the door defendant had this reasonable expectation of the police would not snoop in the hall and then into his hotel room using the sense and h to rely on in order to conduct the warrant was starts in a defendant's hotel room to work the state actually admits there's nothing stopping that that's not reasonable reliance and so the police also cannot reasonably rely on the weren't in relation to residences and the burns appellate court decision had already been decided that the time of this incident that was decided january two thousand and fifteen this incident occurred able to thousand and fifteen or  and for the earth hotel is certainly a public and visitor hotel but it's not the same as in air or it's not the same as a traffic stop on the side of the road or a traffic checkpoint there is the right of the property management to exclude people not directed the dot to sniff the door because i'm learning to the odor of narcotics in a hall doesn't necessarily mean it's coming from that specific room it could be from the our hope itself doors and we also beyond that we have a target reason that the reasoning of rove should be adopted by this court and not the court robey of course acknowledge that trend and anybody does have a reasonable expectation of privacy in a hotel room but the hallway of the hotel is that where they use traversed by very many people and quote than in the room but it's still not as public as the airport and other things that they say the people would submit that there's just quite simply isn't a reasonable expectation in can first and so the dog was sniffing in an area where the dog was allowed to be he wasn't in the room the dog wasn't in the room so i don't i don't see a difference in that that's that case runner because again if this was an apartment of course or a single family residence the dog would not evil to come up to the door but this is a hallway as cases have said for decades that there is a reduced expectation of privacy in a hotel and that clearly extends to the parent and that basically means they're talking about the hallway i think you have to draw the line somewhere and i think drawing a line at the door is makes perfect sense you have a reasonable expectation of just to i'm going to little bit about your question of where that the line would be examined certainly the information doesn't have to be innocent to be protected in that course and cry low and even you have narcotics you have to listen to conduct but it's protected because it's inside the home and so here it's the owner of narcotics but it's part of the intimate activities of the room reject the dissent and robbie in fact he said i actually agree with some of the dissent but i'm just trying to make new water here and he was discussing specifically a courage property rights approach not the privacy rights approach that we're discussing here and that's been established in kyla of course robi was also dealing with the sniff of the halls here we're dealing with the targeted sniff of defendants hotel room door and the hallway is relevant in surprise it allows the government to snoop into the halls and into defendants hotel room that was the reasoning cited and whitaker and also cited in the media as an explanation as to why the curtilage is protected and it's established that a hotel room is the same as a homicide same as an apartment it doesn't matter whether to defend the live there long term certainly not everyone has stable housing not everyone can be in a single family home or even in a longterm apartment so it doesn't matter how long defendant was staying there he had a reasonable expectation of privacy in his home and under a privacy rights now says it doesn't matter whether or not people reasonably expect police should know that when they're using a special tool that's not available to the general public and they're going to a person's residence that's a search further as a state and that's there's nothing stopping the police that's not reasonable reliance and in this case as we argued people do not expect drug sniffing dogs to go up and down the halls of hotels this is a residence for some people single family home or an apartment and you are going to have to submit to less privacy in your residence o i hesitate to answer that question without knowing the other circumstances of the stuff but a car is distinctly different from a hotel and there's a reasonable expectation of privacy in this hotel and that doesn't exist unless you are would you agree with  i'm not aware of any case but i do think there is a difference between the car and the hotel room just because we're dealing with the dots and it doesn't mean that the analysis to be the same the hotel room is more a can and certainly is the same is treated the same under the fourth amendment government can't do that it's the same kind of search when they bring the dog the dog up to the door to sniff the order inside the room in order to narrow it down to say this is where the orders coming from