Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-4_10-cr-00628/USCOURTS-azd-4_10-cr-00628-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Jonathan Michael Thomas
Defendant
USA
Plaintiff

Document Text:

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

JONATHAN MICHAEL THOMAS,

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CR 10-628-TUC-CKJ (GEE)

ORDER

On February 22, 2011, Magistrate Judge Glenda E. Edmonds issued a Report and

Recommendation (Doc. 44) in which she recommended that the Motion to Suppress

Evidence (Doc. 14) filed by Defendant Jonathan Michael Thomas ("Thomas") be denied.

The Report and Recommendation notified the parties that they had fourteen days from the

date of being served with the copy of the Report and Recommendation to file any objections.

Thomas has filed an objection. A response has been filed.

Testimony Regarding Alert and Indication

Border Patrol Agent Paul DuBois ("DuBois"), Special Operations Supervisor and K9

Coordinator for the Tucson Sector, testified that, within the Border Patrol, an "alert" is "a

change of body posture and increased respiration, when the K9 first detects odors he's been

Case 4:10-cr-00628-CKJ-GEE Document 59 Filed 04/28/11 Page 1 of 11
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

1

Motion to Suppress Hearing and testimony before Magistrate Judge Glenda E. Edmonds on

August 25, 2010. Recorded Transcript (“RT”) [Doc. 30].

- 2 -

trained to detect." RT, p. 84.1

 DuBois also testified that an "indication" is "a trained

behavior that pinpoints source." Id. at 84-85. DuBois further explained the difference:

Q(AUSA): . . . So is – and looking at alert behaviors versus an indication, which

is the focus for the K9 handler?

A(DuBois): I think the critical element is that the K9 handler be able to read the K9's

alert.

Q: And so then the indication is significant how?

A: The – the indication is significant and it is a trained behavior once the

dog alerts, the importance is that the handler does read that alert, the dog will then

follow that odor to source and when he gets to source, he provides that pinpointing

behavior, which would be – 

Q: Because there can be – 

A: – the indication. But there may be reasons the dog does not indicate.

Q: Like you had said previously, environmental factors?

A: Could be, certainly.

Q: And perhaps if there was – I guess for the sake of argument, a vehicle

that someone had recently smoked a – a marijuana cigarette, would there be an odor

of that marijuana in the vehicle?

A: There very well could be, yes.

Q: But no physical marijuana as it had been smoked?

A: Correct.

Q: So in that situation, could a dog alert to an odor?

A: Yes.

Q: But there not be anything to indicate to?

A: Correct.

Q: And you said the focus, though, is the alert?

A: The focus is the alert.

RT, pp. 119-120. Dubois also stated that a handler had to be trained to recognize an alert and

that the alert, as opposed to the indication, was the most important part. Id. at p. 85.

Case 4:10-cr-00628-CKJ-GEE Document 59 Filed 04/28/11 Page 2 of 11
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

- 3 -

In his objection, Thomas asserts that insufficient evidence was presented to refer the

vehicle to secondary inspection. Border Patrol Agent Christopher LeBlanc ("LeBlanc")

testified:

A(LeBlanc): As the vehicle approached, my K9 started to demonstrate alert behavior

and at that point I had the primary inspection agent refer the suspect vehicle into

secondary inspection.

* * * * *

A: As the suspect vehicle approached my position where I was standing at,

Beny-A, my K9, started to demonstrate alert behavior by his ears perked up, his

breathing pattern started to change, his body posture started to change, becoming very

animated about his searching, trying to pinpoint – the K9s are trained to pinpoint the

source of the odor. So his tail goes up and he's along – just on the bottom of the

toolbox towards the gas tank, and as he's air-scenting he starts to move towards the

toolbox. So at that point I could tell he's in alert behavior and at that point I referred

the suspect vehicle into secondary inspection.

Q(AUSA): Okay. So just to clarify, those type of mannerisms I guess – 

A: Uh-huh (affirmative).

Q: – for lack of a better word that – 

A: Uh-huh (affirmative).

Q: – the dog was indicating – 

A: Right.

Q: – or the dog was exhibiting.

A: Right.

Q: You said breathing was different?

A: Right.

Q: And his tail was wagging?

A: Right. So what I – what I'm looking for in my K9, what I'm looking for

is a change in breathing patterns and body posture. Normally, if a vehicle would

come by and there's no odor present, he stands there and he just air-scents, and he just

– he just kind of smells the car as it goes by. 

Q: Just sitting there passively?

A: Just – just – he'll just stand there passively not – not move, just stand at

my side and just sniff the air as it goes by.

Q: But that's not what happened here?

Case 4:10-cr-00628-CKJ-GEE Document 59 Filed 04/28/11 Page 3 of 11
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

- 4 -

A: That's not what happened here, correct.

RT, pp 18-21. LeBlanc further testified:

Q(DefAtty): Did you walk, move your position, relative to the – the vehicle?

A(LeBlanc): Yeah. I think prob – and I – I'm trying to think to this specific case.

Generally speaking, the dog when he becomes – he gets into alert behavior he'll

become a lot more adamant and wanting to move around, trying to pinpoint the source

of the odor. So I would move several steps to get out of his way, allow him to do his

thing.

Q: You don't recall specifically though?

A: Not in this specific case, no.

Q: And you don't put in your report anything about what specifically you

saw, whether it was breathing, body posture, tail wagging – 

A: Right.

Q: – one of those or all of those, correct?

A: Correct.

Q: So it could have been one, it could have been all?

A: It's most likely all of them. When speaking of my dog, it's most likely

all.

Q: But it could have been one, could have been all?

A: Correct.

RT, pp. 38-39.

Additionally, Thomas disputes the magistrate judge's conclusion that the canine

indicated prior to the search of the toolbox. Thomas points out that LeBlanc initially testified

that Beny-A "indicated" prior to the search of the toolbox, but subsequently testified that the

"indication" occurred after the toolbox had been searched. LeBlanc testified:

A(LeBlanc): As soon as he got to the toolbox and I presented the toolbox, he

immediately went into what we call a – an indication or a sit. It's a passive indication.

The dogs are trained to passively indicate. So once they smell the odor, they'll go into

a sit.

Q(AUSA): And so after that happened, what did you do?

A: At that point, Beny-A was put back into his kennel so I could look

inside the toolbox.

RT, p. 24. LeBlanc subsequently testified:

Case 4:10-cr-00628-CKJ-GEE Document 59 Filed 04/28/11 Page 4 of 11
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

- 5 -

Q(AUSA): Did – and you say that your – that the K9 indicated at some point?

A(LeBlanc): At one point, yes.

Q: And indicated you say by sitting down?

A: Correct.

* * * * *

Q: You didn't put in your report that your K9 sat down?

A: It's not relevant as far as I'm concerned.

Q: You didn't put in your report that your K9 made an indication as compared to

an alert?

A: Correct.

* * * * * 

Q: And you say that before – or just after you – well, after you cast your hand by

the toolbox, the – the dog jumped up?

A: On which occasion?

Q: In – in secondary.

A: Yes.

Q: And – and that's where you say it sat down?

A: Not on that occasion, no. The dog was deployed three times.

Q: What was the third time?

A: The third time was to – once the ready alert behavior in secondary, the K9 is

put back into his kennel, I come back and inspect – get consent to inspect the contents

of the toolbox. Once I confirm the contraband in the – the toolbox and contraband is

actually found and once everybody has been secured, I'll re-deploy the K9 again,

present the toolbox, and he'll provide me with a sit, and his reward comes out. So

essentially we have to confirm that contraband has lo – been located before he gets

his reward.

Q: And did he sit down at that point?

A: Yes, he did.

Q: Did he sit down at any point before that?

A: No, not to the best of my recollection, no.

RT, pp. 45-46. LeBlanc also testified:

Case 4:10-cr-00628-CKJ-GEE Document 59 Filed 04/28/11 Page 5 of 11
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

- 6 -

Q(Court): Well then you bring him around, now he's at the gas tank side and then

what does he do at that point?

A(LeBlanc): At that point – 

Q: There's more alert before not – 

A: Correct.

Q: – not indicated?

A: Correct

Q: Okay. So what did he do then?

A: At that point he – he – he's still – he's up high, he's got his nose – he's

dee – he's breathing deeply through his nose, his mouth is shut, and all the air is

coming into his nose, his nose is on the toolbox.

Q: Nose is on – 

A: And – 

Q: Is he – is he up there on two feet?

A: He's up there on two feet and as I'm – 

Q: Okay.

A: – and as I'm doing this, I'm continuing on presenting.

Q: Okay.

A: If he's sticking to it, that's telling me.

Q: I see. Okay.

A: So I'm trying to get him to move – 

Q: All right.

A: – from that location, but he's not going to move there, because he knows

he's got an odor he's been trained to detect at that location.

RT, pp. 47-48. LeBlanc also testified:

Q(DefAtty): So the – the indication comes when at that point you've already opened

up the toolbox and believe you found contraband?

A(LeBlanc): Correct.

Q: And you wanted to – you wanted to for your reinforce for your K9 that

it had found what it should have found, right?

A: Correct.

Case 4:10-cr-00628-CKJ-GEE Document 59 Filed 04/28/11 Page 6 of 11
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

- 7 -

Q: And it was at that point that it sat down, indicating the – or giving an

indication?

A: Yes. But I think you need to understand that – that just because a dog's

in odor – we refer to it as being in odor or smelling the odor it's trained to detect, it

doesn't mean he's going to automatically sit just like that. He's going to try to pinpoint

the source where you – of the order where he's getting the most amount of odor. So

I'm trained to read that and understand that and see that. So what I do is I'll praise him

off; good boy, good boy, good boy, let's go – and I'll put him away and confirm the

actual contraband is in the vehicle.

Q: But your K9 is trained to – 

A: Right.

Q: – indicate before you actually go and do the search, right?

A: I don't follow you, sir.

Q: In other words, you're not – you're not suppos – the dog is not – you

don't train the dog to sit down to detect these trained odors so it can sit down after the

fact after you've already -- after you already know what it is, right? After you've

already conducted the search?

A: Right, he's trained to pinpoint the source of the odor, then go into a sit.

Now keep in mind there's a lot of variables that come into play with this as well; time

of day. With my particular dog, if it's very hot outside, sometimes he'll just stop and

look at me. I read the alert behavior and I see the alert behavior, but it's hot, he's been

out there a while and the pavement's too hot for him to sit down. He won't sit. He'll

just stop and look at me; where's my toy, that express – that's the expre – that's how

I interpret reading his – his expression. So there's – there are some variables there,

yes.

Q: But – but at – and the K9, it goes through a whole program on his

training, correct?

A: Correct.

Q: And they – they don't train the dog to give indication behavior by

looking at the handler, right?

A: Correct.

RT, pp. 49-51. LeBlanc also testified:

Q(Court): . . . Now, you said your – he got over here to the – where the gas tank

is – 

A(LeBlanc): Correct.

Q: – and that's when he put his paws up and then you said he wouldn't

move from that even though you went casting further – 

A: Yes, ma'am.

Case 4:10-cr-00628-CKJ-GEE Document 59 Filed 04/28/11 Page 7 of 11
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

- 8 -

Q: – he would not move?

A: Correct.

Q: And Is that a – an alert for you? I mean, because – 

A: That's an indication for me, yes, ma'am.

Q: Okay.

A: That he – 

Q: So what's – again, the difference between an alert and an indication; an

indication is he's found it or he's – 

A: He's found it – 

Q: – pretty sure?

A: – an indication and he's going to sit down.

Q: Okay. But he didn't sit down this time because you – what, you pulled

him away?

A: Actually, yes, I would put – actually put him away at this point.

Q: Okay.

A: So I – so I could confirm there was actually an odor there.

Q: Because he wouldn't follow your hand?

A: Right.

Q: Because he wouldn't follow your hand.

A: Exactly.

Q: And he stood there.

A: He stopped.

* * * * *

Q(DefAtty): And you didn't wait for him to sit down?

A: No, I did not.

RT, pp. 54-55.

 . . .

 . . .

 . . .

Case 4:10-cr-00628-CKJ-GEE Document 59 Filed 04/28/11 Page 8 of 11
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

- 9 -

Canine Certification Records

The government must disclose “‘the dog’s training and certification records under

Fed.R.Crim.P. 16[.]’” United States v. Nava, 363 F.3d 942, 944 n. 1 (9th Cir. 2004), citing

United States v. Cedano-Arellano, 332 F.3d 568, 571 (9th Cir. 2003). In this case, these

records were disclosed by the government. These records, along with the testimony

presented at the hearing, establish that the canine team of LeBlanc and Beny-A were reliable

at the time of the search of the vehicle in this case. Although Thomas asserts that the

redacted records do not establish the reliability of the canine team, the records established

not only the training and certification, but also the passing scores. See Exhibit 2. Thomas

has not provided any authority for his apparent assertion that additional records are needed

to establish that Beny-A is a well-trained and reliable dog. The Court agrees with the

magistrate judge that unredacted records need not be disclosed to the defense. The Court

further agrees with the magistrate judge that the redacted records establish the reliability of

the canine team.

Referral to Secondary Inspection

“[B]rief detention following valid immigration questioning is permitted so long as the

government can prove “an articulable suspicion or a minimal showing of suspicion.” United

States v. Taylor, 934 F.2d 218, 221 (9th Cir. 1991). The Ninth Circuit has found that an

“‘alert’ by [a] certified, reliable narcotics detector dog [is] sufficient, even by itself, to

support a finding of probable cause.” United States v. Cedano-Arellano, 332 F.3d 568, 573

(9th Cir. 2003). Thomas asserts that insufficient evidence was presented to permit the

referral to the secondary inspection site – Thomas points out that LeBlanc's testimony makes

clear that he had no memory or record of what Beny-A actually did as an alert in primary

inspection.

However, during his testimony LeBlanc described the conduct that Beny-A exhibited

when alerting. He further testified that Beny-A could have exhibited one or all of those

behaviors in alerting in this case. DuBois testified regarding the importance of the handler

Case 4:10-cr-00628-CKJ-GEE Document 59 Filed 04/28/11 Page 9 of 11
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

- 10 -

reading the alert behavior of a canine. In this case, LeBlanc testified that he had been a

certified handler since 2008 and that Beny-A was the first dog he has worked with. As

pointed out by Thomas, the behaviors exhibited by Beny-A to demonstrate an alert are

untrained behaviors that may also appear in the absence of the detection of drugs. It is not

the individual behaviors that constitute an alert, but the training and experience of LeBlanc

and Beny-A working together that permits LeBlanc to "read" Beny-A and determine when

Beny-A has alerted. See generally Brown v. Texas, 443 U.S. 47, 52 n. 2, 99 S.Ct. 2637, 61

L.Ed.2d 357 (1979) (observing that a trained investigator may be “able to perceive and

articulate meaning in given conduct which would be wholly innocent to the untrained

observer”). In this case, LeBlanc's testimony makes clear that, through the certification

process, the re-certification processes, and LeBlanc's history and experience of working with

Beny-A, LeBlanc read Beny-A and recognized alert behavior. The Court finds the evidence

established that Beny-A alerted during primary inspection. 

 

Probable Cause to Search the Toolbox

Initially, LeBlanc testified that Beny-A either indicated or sat. Upon further

questioning, LeBlanc clarified that he can read Beny-A and recognize when he has indicated

without Beny-A sitting down. Although Beny-A is trained to sit as an indication, LeBlanc

testified that he prevented Beny-A from sitting. This is consistent with DuBois' testimony

that the most important thing is the alert and that the handler be able to read the canine.

Contrary to Thomas' assertion, LeBlanc did not "change his story," but simply provided

further details and explanations. The Court agrees with the magistrate judge's conclusion that

Beny-A "indicated" at the toolbox. 

As pointed out by the magistrate judge, the Ninth Circuit has found that an “‘alert’ by

[a] certified, reliable narcotics detector dog [is] sufficient, even by itself, to support a finding

of probable cause.” Cedano-Arellano, 332 F.3d at 573. In this case, there was not only an

alert, but also an indication. Moreover, even if Beny-A's failure to sit would result in a

conclusion that Beny-A did not "indicate" at the toolbox, there is no basis to conclude that

Case 4:10-cr-00628-CKJ-GEE Document 59 Filed 04/28/11 Page 10 of 11
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

- 11 -

either (1) Beny-A's original alert or (2) Beny-A's alert behavior in secondary inspection, see

RT, p. 47, does not provide sufficient probable cause to search the toolbox. See e.g. United

States v. Parada, 577 F.3d 1275, 1282 (10th Cir. 2009) (declines to adopt a stricter standard

that requires a final indication, rather than an alert, to establish probable cause). 

Consent to Search

The Court agrees with the magistrate judge that, because probable cause existed for

the search, the Court does not have to reach the issue of whether Thomas consented to the

search. See United States v. Ross, 456 U.S. 798, 799, 825 (1982); see also Arizona v. Gant,

129 S. Ct. 1710, 1719 (2009) (noting there are other exceptions to the warrant requirement

for vehicle searches, besides the search-incident exception, including probable cause to

believe a vehicle contains criminal activity evidence); California v. Carney, 471 U.S. 386,

394-95 (1985).

Accordingly, after an independent review, IT IS ORDERED:

1. The Report and Recommendation [Doc. # 44] is ADOPTED;

2. The Motion to Suppress Evidence (Doc. 14) is DENIED.

DATED this 27th day of April, 2011.

Case 4:10-cr-00628-CKJ-GEE Document 59 Filed 04/28/11 Page 11 of 11