LINGERING and DIFFERENT ODOR ALERTS:
Summary:
The courts recognize lingering odor alerts. Even finding different controlled substances, different from those trained for, is recognized by the courts.
A “non-seizure alert” is an alert to a quantity of controlled substances that is not enough to seize.
“Masking odors,” odors used to mask the smell of drugs, are recognized by the courts.
A) United States v Meyer (536 F. 2d 963 (1976) First Circuit
Trained dog’s positive reaction to empty containers, augmented by other information indicating that the defendant had been in possession of cocaine, could lead magistrate to believe that information conveyed by the animal’s positive reaction, which indicated presence of narcotics, was reliable.
B) United States v Guerrera (554 F. 2d 987 (1977) Ninth Circuit
In prosecution for drug offense, testimony relating to training and behavior of dog trained to detect presence of contraband was admissible in evidence.
Narcotic detector dog that was trained to find contraband of cocaine and marijuana, also was trained to indicate where such contraband had been located within the past twenty-four hours.
The dog alerted to the back seat and the trunk of the defendant’s car. Since no drugs were present, the officers concluded that the seat and trunk had recently contained or been in contact with contraband at some time during the preceding 24 hours.
C) United States v Waltzer (682 F. 2d 370 (1982) Second Circuit
The fact that presently “clean” luggage recently used to carry drugs might be identified by sniffing canine is not significant in establishing probable cause to arrest person claiming the luggage.
D) United States v Robinson (707 F. 2d 811 (1983) Fourth Circuit
Where the dog was trained to alert to packages which had been in possession of individuals who had handled marijuana, cocaine or heroin, his initial detection with respect to a package at an airport was sufficient to establish probable cause for a search for controlled substances, and the fact that a different controlled substance was actually discovered did not violate the legality of the search.
E) United States v Lambert (771 F. 2d 83 (1985) Sixth Circuit
Agents did not go outside scope of search warrant for illegal drugs, equipment used to manufacture drugs, drug paraphernalia and all documents relating to sale and distribution of drugs, when they seized items which were not on their face, specific types of items authorized to be seized by the warrant because they contained drug residue, as determined by agent’s dog.
F) Jennings v Joshua Independent School District (877 F. 2d 313 (1989) Fifth Circuit
Police officer acted reasonably in obtaining a search warrant of a vehicle in a school parking lot to which a “sniffer-dog” had alerted. The search did not produce contraband, although the dog was capable of reacting to residual scents lingering for up to four to six weeks and the dog was proven to be reliable by detecting contraband.
G) United States v Allen (990 F. 2d 667 (1993) First Circuit
Dog sniff test of Express Mail package containing LSD generated probable cause for issuance of warrant to search package for contraband, despite the fact that dog was not trained to find LSD and the trained dog alerted to the package.
H) United States v Glover (104 F. 3d 1570 (1997) Tenth Circuit
Officers were concerned about a suspicious U.S. Express Mail package emitting the odor of coffee. The officers were familiar with methods used to mask the smell of drugs.
The package was exposed to a dog sniff. “The dog was unable to detect the presence of drugs.”
Nevertheless, officers continued their investigation and even without a positive canine alert, could and did develop probable cause for a search warrant.
I) United States v Patten (183 F. 3d 1190 (1999) Tenth Circuit
An alert from a canine with a sufficient accuracy record in detecting drugs is generally sufficient to establish probable cause for arrest.
The canine alerted to a suitcase. Inside was ephedrine, a federally controlled chemical substance used in the production of methamphetamine.
J) United States v Rosario-Peralta (199 F. 3d 552 (1999) First Circuit
Dog sniff of defendant ’s vessel for the presence of traces of controlled substances was reliable. Even though no drugs were found on vessel, it was possible that the dog alerted to the presence of a controlled substance, or different controlled substance, on the deck of the vessel.
K) United States v Outlaw (319 F. 3d 701 (2003) Fifth Circuit
A canine’s positive alert to a suitcase found to contain phencyclidine (PCP) was reliable, even though PCP was not one of the drugs that the dog had been trained to detect.