### 'STAOTOF VIASHi^i-^

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON QUANG NGUYEN, Petitioner,

v. PORT OF SEATTLE POLICE DEPARTMENT, Respondent. DIVISION ONE
No. 70841-4-1 UNPUBLISHED OPINION
FILED: April 20, 2015 Dwyer, J. — Quang Nguyenappeals the civil forfeiture of $80,000 under the Uniform Controlled Substances Act, chapter 69.50 RCW, to the Port of Seattle Police Department. Nguyen contends that the hearing examiner erred by denying his motion to suppress evidence of a dog sniffthatviolated his constitutional rights against warrantless searches. We affirm.
Around 5:00 a.m. on August 3, 2011, SeaTac airport security agents stopped Quang Nguyen to investigate numerous bulges in hisclothing. Upon determining that the bulges were bundles ofmoney, the agents referred the matter to the Port ofSeattle Police. After repeatedly advising Nguyen that he
was not under arrest and was free to leave, officers asked him whether he wouldNo. 70841-4-1/2 answer their questions and consentto a search of his carry-on bag. Nguyen spoke with the officers and allowed them to search his bag. The officers determined that Nguyen had a total of$80,000 concealed on his person and in 

### his bag. They also discovered "pay and owe sheets," receipts for wire transfers toVietnam totaling $25,000, and a receipt indicating that Nguyen had paid 

### $4,000 cash onhis credit card in Dutch Harbor, Alaska the previous day. 

### Nguyen admitted that he had been convicted ofdistributing narcotics in 1996. Officers putthebundles ofcashin a plastic bag and then placed thebag 

### in apublic lobby area. Detective Matthew Bruch and his narcotics detection dog, Lilly, then entered the lobby. Lilly indicated to Detective Bruch that she had detected theodor ofnarcotics neara garbage can, where theDetective found the 

### bag ofmoney. The officers then seizedthe money and provided Nguyenwith a written notice of seizure pursuant to RCW 69.50.505. 

### Nguyen filed atimely claimforthe money. Priorto the administrative 

### hearing, Nguyen filed amotionto suppress evidence ofthe dog sniff, arguing that itwas a "second and distinct search," afterthe money was seized, and therefore 

### "not allowed under article 1, section 7ofthe Washington State Constitution and the Fourth Amendment." The hearing examinerdenied the motion to suppress 

### evidence ofthe dog sniff. Afterthe hearing, the hearing examinerentered written 

### findings offact and conclusions oflawforfeiting Nguyen's interestin the $80,000 to thePort ofSeattle Police Department. Nguyen appealed toKing County 

### SuperiorCourt, which affirmed the hearing examiner's decision. Nguyen again appeals.No. 70841-4-1/3

We apply the standards ofthe Washington Administrative Procedure Act (APA), chapter 34.05 RCW, directly to the agency record in reviewing agency adjudicative proceedings. William Dickson Co. v. Puqet Sound Air Pollution Control Agency, 81 Wn. App. 403, 407, 914 P.2d 750 (1996). Nguyen has not assigned error to any findings of fact, so they are verities on appeal. Tapper v. Emp't Sec. Dep't, 122 Wn.2d 397, 407, 858 P.2d 494 (1993). On questions of law, ourreview is de novo. Franklin County Sheriffs Office v. Sellers, 97Wn.2d 317, 325, 646 P.2d 113 (1982). As below, Nguyen argues on appeal that after the police found the money 

### during a consensual search ofhis person and bag, theFourth Amendment and 

### Washington's constitution required them to obtain asearch warrant orrequest his specific oradditional consent before taking the money into another room to 

### perform a "second and separate search" with the dog. Contraryto Nguyen's assertions, however, the dog sniffdid not constitute an unlawful search under either the Fourth Amendment or Washington'sconstitution. "A 'canine sniff by a well-trained narcotics detection dog" "in a public place," does "not constitute a 

### 'search'within the meaning ofthe Fourth Amendment." United States v. Place, 462U.S. 696, 706-07, 103 S. Ct. 2637, 77 L. Ed.2d 110(1983); see ajso, Illinois
v. Caballes, 543 U.S. 405, 410, 125 S. Ct. 834, 160L. Ed. 2d 842 (2005) ("A dog 

### sniffconducted during a concededly lawful traffic stop that reveals no information other than the location of a substance that no individual has any right to possess does not violate the Fourth Amendment.").No. 70841-4-1/4
Under Washington's constitution, whether a "canine sniff is a search depends on the circumstances of the sniff itself." State v. Hartzell, 156 Wn. App. 918, 929, 237 P.3d 928 (2010) (citing State v. Bovce, 44 Wn. App. 724, 729, 723 P.2d 28 (1986)). "[A]s long as the canine 'sniffs the object from an area where the defendant does not have a reasonable expectation of privacy, and the canine sniff itself is minimally intrusive, then no search has occurred.'" Hartzell, 156 Wn. App. at 929 (quoting Bovce, 44 Wn. App. at 730). As the dog herein sniffed the plastic bag containing the money in a public lobby area, the sniffing did not intrude into an area where Nguyen had a reasonable expectation of privacy. No violation of article I, section 7 occurred during the dog sniff. Thus, the hearing examiner properly denied Nguyen's motion to suppress. Affirmed.

We concur: