Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_14-cv-01341/USCOURTS-casd-3_14-cv-01341-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 625
Nature of Suit: Drug Related Seizure of Property
Cause of Action: 21:881 Forfeiture Property-Drugs

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 14cv1341-LAB (JLB)

TENTATIVE RULING ON CLAIMANT

THOMAS YANKLE'S MOTION TO

SUPPRESS AND MOTION FOR

SUMMARY JUDGMENT

vs.

$20,000 IN U.S. CURRENCY,

Defendant.

Currently on calendar for Monday, August 17, 2015 at 11:15 a.m. is a hearing on

Claimant Thomas Yankle's motion to suppress evidence and motion for summary judgment. 

The briefing on both motions is now complete and this order represents the Court's tentative

ruling. Counsel should appear for the hearing — but at 12:15, not 11:15 — prepared to focus

discussion on this proposed ruling. If Yankle doesn't wish to contest the tentative ruling, he

should file a notice of non-opposition to the entry of a final order on these motions. 

This ruling is tentative; the final ruling will include more detailed reasoning and

citations to authority.

Tentative Ruling

Background

On February 18, 2014, the Government applied for a warrant to search a particular

Express Mail Parcel. See 14mj647-NLS-1, USA v. Express Mail Parcel #EF085568537US.

- 1 - 14cv1341

Case 3:14-cv-01341-LAB-JLB Document 51 Filed 08/14/15 Page 1 of 6
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

The application identified the object of the search as: evidence of a crime; contraband or

fruits of a crime; and property used, intended for use, or designed for use in committing a

crime. It was supported by two affidavits, one from postal inspector Gary Arias and one from

police investigator and canine handler Patrick Estrada, whose trained canine partner Chewy

had alerted to the parcel.

Arias' affidavit explained that he encountered the parcel on February 11, 2014 while

conducting routine interdiction of inbound parcels. The parcel was hand-addressed, sent

from an entity called "Stank Properties" in Massillon, Ohio and sent to "TJY, Inc." in San

Diego. Arias investigated and determined that there were no entities by those names at those

addresses. The affidavit explained that the size and characteristics of the parcel were

consistent in Arias' experience with proceeds from drug trafficking, and gave specific reasons

for those conclusions. 

The affidavit related that Arias went to the residence the parcel was addressed to and

left a delivery notice with a request for a call. Thomas Yankle returned the call. He told Arias

he was expecting a parcel containing an unknown amount of money, and refused to give

Arias permission to open it. Yankle said he was flying to Chicago the next morning and

needed the money for his trip, though he said he did not know who had sent him the money.

Officer Estrada's affidavit sets forth, among other things, his background and training

in narcotics detection, as well as the training and experience of Chewy. As one of Estrada's

and Chewy's qualifications, the affidavit says that in December of 2013, both successfully

completed a course on narcotic odor detection and were certified by the California Narcotic

Canine Association (CNCA). Since that time, the affidavit said, both had over a dozen hours

of training time and that Chewy had correctly alerted, resulting in the seizure of narcotics and

narcotics proceeds.

Magistrate Judge Nita Stormes issued the warrant on February 18. The warrant said

the parcel was believed to contain controlled substances, and materials and documents

reflecting the distribution of controlled substances, including money paid for controlled

substances. The $20,000 at stake in this case was found when the parcel was opened.

- 2 - 14cv1341

Case 3:14-cv-01341-LAB-JLB Document 51 Filed 08/14/15 Page 2 of 6
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

On May 28, 2014, a state judge issued a search warrant authorizing the search of

Yankle's residence. (See Docket no. 41-2 (state search warrant and application therefor).) 

The suppression motion represents that probable cause for this warrant was based primarily

on the fruits of the federal search warrant. Yankle argues that because the federal warrant

was issued without probable cause, its fruits should be suppressed, and evidence discovered

as a result of execution of the state warrant should also be suppressed. 

Arias found items in Yankle's trash can that provided a secondary basis for the state

warrant. On May 27, a day when garbage trucks collected the local trash, Arias looked in

a trash can near Yankle's garage. He found several items with Yankle's name on them, and

various items suggestive of drug distribution. Among the items were two boxes that had

contained heat-sealed vacuum sealing bags, a portion of a vacuum sealed plastic bag, a

printed receipt for UPS shipping, a birthday card to "Tom" saying the sender had sent $3500

and would send $1500 more within the week, three coffee filters with an unknown residue,

a receipt for three boxes, and two bank receipts for deposits. On May 28, Arias conducted

a presumptive field test on one of the coffee filters and it tested positive for amphetamine.

A later test showed the filters did not contain controlled substance residues, and Yankle cites

the later test in support of his contention that probable cause was lacking. Yankle also

speculates that a neighbor likely threw the drug-related garbage into his trash can, in order

for the neighbor to avoid incriminating himself. Finally, he also speculates that the coffee

filters were likely the result of cleaning a coffee-maker with a vinegar solution.

Officers executing the state search warrant found about 38 pounds of marijuana in

Yankle's garage. 

Motions

Yankle, as the party seeking summary judgment, bears the burden of showing there

is no genuine issue of material fact and he is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Celotex

Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986); Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). His sole argument in favor

of summary judgment is that, assuming the motion to suppress is granted, there is no

evidence linking the Defendant currency to the distribution of drugs. If the motion to suppress

- 3 - 14cv1341

Case 3:14-cv-01341-LAB-JLB Document 51 Filed 08/14/15 Page 3 of 6
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

fails, Yankle has not met his burden.

The motion to suppress the fruits of the federal search is based on an alleged lack of

probable cause. Yankle maintains that if the fruits of the federal search are suppressed, then

evidence seized pursuant to the state search warrant must also be suppressed. On the other

hand, if the federal warrant was properly issued, Yankle's challenge to the state warrant

necessarily fails.

With regard to the federal warrant, Yankle's sole argument is that it was invalid

because the warrant application failed to establish probable cause. See United States v.

Harris, 403 U.S. 573 (1971); United States v. Miller, 753 F.2d 1475, 1479 (9th Cir. 1985)

(magistrate must determine whether there is a "fair probability" that contraband or evidence

of a crime will be found, before issuing warrant). See also Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213, 238

(1983) (magistrate's task in deciding whether to issue a warrant is to make a "practical,

common-sense decision").

His first challenge is to show that the dog alert did not establish probable cause. Yet

the affidavit said that both Officer Arias and Chewy had been properly trained in the detection

of narcotics. Chewy's alert, standing alone, would therefore ordinarily amount to probable

cause. See Florida v. Harris, 133 S.Ct. 1050, 1057 (2013) ("If a bona fide organization has

certified a dog after testing his reliability in a controlled setting, a court can presume (subject

to any conflicting evidence offered) that the dog's alert provides probable cause to search.")

The only evidence Yankle cites to challenge the reliability of Chewy's alert is his own

statistical analysis of search warrants for Express Mail packages coming into San Diego

between January 1, 2009 and February 18, 2014. (Mot. to Suppress, at 5:22–6.) In each of

the 77 cases, Yankle argues, a canine alerted to a package. Drugs were found in five of

those packages. Yankle concludes from this "that Inspector Arias knew there was a 93%

probability that the package did not contain drugs." (Id. at 6:8–9.) But his analysis is heavily

flawed, and does not withstand scrutiny.

To begin with, the search warrant and the application for it were directed not just at

drugs, but also the proceeds from drugs, such as currency. Because drug dealers handle

- 4 - 14cv1341

Case 3:14-cv-01341-LAB-JLB Document 51 Filed 08/14/15 Page 4 of 6
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

both drugs and money and often store the two near each other, money can be tainted with

drug residue, leading a canine to alert. (Arias Affidavit in Supp. of Fed'l Warrant Application,

at ¶ 4(a).) According to Yankle's own analysis, either currency or a detectable amount of

drugs was found in 61 of the 77 packages in cases he analyzed. As for the remaining 16

packages, Yankle does not attempt to show they contained no drug residue; he has merely

offered his own conclusions in cases where warrants were issued. 

Second, the Supreme Court has cautioned that field results — like the ones Yankle

points to — are a poor indicator of a narcotics dog's reliability, partly because they are prone

to "markedly overstate a dog's real false positives":

if the dog alerts to a car in which the officer finds no narcotics, the dog may

not have made a mistake at all. The dog may have detected substances that

were too well hidden or present in quantities too small for the officer to locate.

Or the dog may have smelled the residual odor of drugs previously in the

vehicle or on the driver's person.

Harris, 133 S.Ct. at 1057. See also id. at 1056 n.2 (citing authority). In the survey Yankle

conducted, the failure of authorities to find detectable quantities of drugs in the packages

cannot be said to be a failure on the dogs' part, nor can it be said that probable cause was

lacking. What is more likely is that most or all of the packages in which no drugs were found

contained items (such as currency) with drug residue on them, or else had been packed,

handled, or stored near drugs, leaving a residual odor. "In the usual case, the mere chance

that the substance might no longer be at the location [to be searched] does not matter; a

well-trained dog's alert establishes a fair probability—all that is required for probable

cause—that either drugs or evidence of a drug crime . . . will be found." Id. at 1056 n.2.

What's more, Yankle hasn't focused on Chewy's field results, but instead has blended

the results of all dogs' alerts that resulted in issuance of warrants by this Court. In effect,

Yankle's argument is that Chewy's alert was unreliable because (he thinks) other dogs have

falsely alerted. This is illogical and inconsistent with binding precedent.

By itself, the alert to the package by a trained narcotics canine was enough to

establish probable cause for issuance of the federal warrant, and both motions fail for that

reason. The Court likewise rejects Yankle's subsidiary arguments. Inconsistencies between

- 5 - 14cv1341

Case 3:14-cv-01341-LAB-JLB Document 51 Filed 08/14/15 Page 5 of 6
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Arias' affidavit and his deposition testimony are minor, and explained by facts in the record;

there are no indicia of mendacity. Besides, even if the federal warrant were suppressed,

Arias' search of the trash can1

 uncovered enough evidence to establish probable cause for

issuance of the state warrant. 

Conclusion and Order

Yankle has pointed to no persuasive reasons why either of the warrants should be

suppressed, and there is therefore no basis on which to grant summary judgment in his

favor. The Court tentatively rules that Yankle's motions should be denied.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: August 13, 2015

HONORABLE LARRY ALAN BURNS

United States District Judge

1

 Arias permissibly searched the trash can without a warrant. See California v.

Greenwood, 486 U.S. 35, 39–43 (1988). The items he found suggest drug dealing and are

connected to Yankle. The fact that a laboratory test later uncovered no drug residues in the

coffee filters is immaterial, since the field test Arias relied on suggested the filters did have

drug residue on them. See Illinois v. Rodriguez, 497 U.S. 177, 184 (1990) (warrant's validity

is not impaired if it is based on apparently reliable information, even if that information is later

found to be erroneous).

- 6 - 14cv1341

Case 3:14-cv-01341-LAB-JLB Document 51 Filed 08/14/15 Page 6 of 6