2010 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit

10-1-2010 

# U SA v . Jimm y P ie rce P r e c e de nt i al or N on-P r e c e de nt i al : P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 09-3865

F o llow thi s and a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi ll a nova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2010

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e and ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i l l a nova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2010 D e c i sion s b y a n author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i l l a nova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin
. C arl s on@l a

w . vi l l a nova . e du
. Re c omme nde d C it at ion

" U SA v . Jimm y P ie r c e " (2010). 2010 D e cisio n s . P ape r 346. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2010/346H onor abl e K athar i ne S. H ay den, U ni t ed St at es D i s t r i ctJ udge * f o r t h e D is tr ic t o f

N e w J e rs e y , s ittin g b yd e s ig n a tio n .

1 P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT

____________________ N o. 09- 3865

____________________ UNI TE D ST ATE S OF AM ERI CA

v. J I M M Y LEE PI ERCE, A p p e llan t

____________________ APP EAL F ROM THE UNI TE D ST ATE S DI S TRI CT C OURT

F OR THE DI S TRI CT OF DEL AW ARE ( N o. 1- 08- cr - 00126- 001) D istri ct Ju d g e: H o n o rab le Jo sep h J. F arn an , Jr.

____________________ Subm i t t ed underT hi r d C i r cui tL

. A

. R

. 34. 1( a)

M ay11, 2010

____________________ Be f o r e : BA RR Y, RO T H, Ci r c u i tJ u d g e s a n d HAYDE N, *

D i s t r i ctJ udge ( Fi l ed: O ct ober1, 2010 ) L u is A . O rt iz , E s q . D ani el I

. Si egel , E s q. O ff ice o f F ed era l Pu b li c D ef en d er 800 K i ng St r eet , Sui t e 200 W i l m i ngt on, D E 19801- 0000“ W ith th e c o n s e n t o f t h e c o u r t a n d th e g o v e rn m e n t, a 1 d e f e n d a n t m a ye n ter a c o n d iti o n a l p lea o f g u iltyo r n o lo co n tend ere , rese rvin g in w ri ti n g the righ t t o h av e a n ap p ell ate c o u rt re v ie w a n a d v e rs e d e te rm in a tio n o f a s p e c if ie d p re tr ia l m o tio n . A d e f e n d a n t w h o p re v a ils o n a p p e a l m a y th e n w ith d ra w th e p l e a .” F ed

. R

. C ri m . P

. 1 1 (a)(2).

2 C ouns el forA ppel l ant E d w a rd J . M c A n d re w , E s q . O f f i c e o f t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s A t t o r n e y 1007 N or t h O r ange Str eet , Sui t e 700 P. O

. B ox 2046 W i l m i ngt on, D E 19899- 0000 C ouns el forA ppel l ee

____________________ OPI NI ON O F THE COURT

____________________
H A Y D E N , D i s t r i ctJ udge. W hen a na r cot i cs dog’ s “al er t ” l eads t o t he di s coveryof d ru g s in a n a u to m o b ile d u rin g a law f u l traf f ic s to p , th e la w is s et t l ed thati t s s ni ffs ar ound t he ext er i or of t he car ar e notdeemed t o be a s ear ch undert he Four t h A m endment

. W hathappens w hen t he d og j um ps i nt o the c ar? Jim m yL ee Pi er ce w as s ent ence d t o a pr i s on t erm of 300 m o n th s a n d 3 y e a rs s u p e rv ise d re lea se o n h is c o n d iti o n a l g u ilty pl ea t o pos s es s i on w i t h i nt ent t o di s t r i but e 500 gra m s orm or e of 1 c o c a in e . D e law a re S tate P o lice se ize d th e d ru g s a n d $ 2 0 ,0 0 0 in cas h aft ers ear chi ng t he gl ove box i n Pi er ce’ s r ent ed cari n t he cour s e of a l aw ful t r aff

i c s t op. A t r ai ned nar cot i cs dog, K

- 9 C ol e, alerted firstto the ex teri o r of P ierce’s c ar, an d then , as h is ha n d ler, C orpor al A l i s on M eadow s , w al ked C ol e ar ound t he ca r , he ent er ed3 t he fr onts eatt hr ough t he open dr i ver ’ s doorand ale r t ed i n t he ar eas of t he pas s engers eatand gl ove box. Pol i ce then conduc t ed a w arr ant l es s s ear ch of t he car and w hen t hey opened t h e g love b o x , th e yf

o u n d $ 2 0 ,0 0 0 a n d c lo s e to o n e k ilo o f c o c a in e . P ierce m o v ed to sup p ress. A fter con d u cti n g an ev iden ti ary hear i ng dur i ng w hi ch i tr evi ew ed a 42- m i nut e vi deot ape of t he t r a f f i c s t o p a n d r e l a t e d p o l i c e a c t i v i t y , a n d t o o k t h e t e s t i m ony of o ff icers o n the s ce n e, th e D istri c t C o u rtfo u n d that K -9 C o le’s ac ti o n s , inclu d ing jum p ing into the ca r th rou g h the o p en d ri v er’s door , w er e i ns t i nct i v e response s , and di d notcons t i tut e a s ear ch. P ierce ra ises a si n g le issu e o n ap p ea l: that C o le’s ha n d ler, C orpor al M eadow s , fac i l it ated t he dog’ s entr yi nt o t he ca rby ex tend ing the lea sh an d , as a resu lt , C o le’s i n teri o r sniff s w ere t r ans form ed i nt o a s ear ch. Pi er ce ar gues t hata r emand i s r equi r ed forfi ndi ngs of pr obabl e ca us e forthe s ear ch. T h e D is tr ic t C o u rt h a d ju ri s d ic tio n p u rs u a n t to 1 8 U .S .C . § 3231. W e h a v e j u r i s d i c t i o n u n d e r 2 8 U. S. C. § 1 2 9 1

. W e r evi ew t he fa ctual fi ndi ngs of the D i s t r i ctC our tforcl earerro r, and exerci se pl enaryrevi ew ov er t he appli cat i on of law t o those fact s. I . T he tr aff i c s t op, w h ich occurr ed on J ul y15, 2008, w as r ec or ded bya ca m er a mount ed on the das hboar d of the patr ol car dr i ven byC orpor al D ougl as B r i et zke, t he D el aw ar e St at e Troope r w h o stop p ed P ierce f

o r s p ee d ing

. T h e D V D p lay ed at P ierce’s e v id e n tiary he a rin g re c o rd s p o lice a c tiv ityf ro m th e m o m e n ts b e f o re P ier c e ’s c a r slo w s a n d sto p s o n th e sh o u ld e r o f I-9 5 , so u th of the t ol l pl aza i n N ew ark, D el aw ar e, t o t he r etur n of t he t r oop car t o headqua r t er s , w her e a f i el d t es tw as condu cted on the drugs rec o v ere d fro m the c ar. T h e a rresti n g o ff icer, B ri etzk e a n d K -9 C ol e’ s handl er , M eadow s , t es t i fi ed att he hea r i ng. A c c o r d i n g t o t h e t e s t i mon y a n d a s r e c o r d e d o n t h e vi deo, P ier c e p u lled o v e r to th e sh o u ld e r an d B rie tzk e p u lled in b e h in d h is car . W ear i ng audi o r ecor di ng equi pm ent th roughout , B r i et zke w al ked up t o t he pas s engers i de, and s poke t o Pi erce thro ugh t he open fr ontpas s engerw i ndow

. B ri et zke obs erved “s t ai ns , t r as h,4 paper s , and di s car ded food w r apper s i n t he pas s engers eatar ea

. . . , g iv in g th e c a r a ‘liv e d -in lo o k .’ ” ( A p p . 5 .) H e tes tifie d to se e in g “ m a n yc e ll p h o n e s a n d s m a ll ele c tro n ic d e v ice s, m o stly di s as s embl ed, s i t t i ng i n t he pass enger s eat , al ong w i t h an open box o f N o - D o z a n d a p a c k o f V i v a r i n . B i r d s e e d a n d c h i l d r e n ’ s t o ys w e re s c a tte re d in th e b a c k s e a t.” (A p p . 5 -6 .) P i e r c e g a v e Br i e t z k e a d r i v e r ’ s l i c e ns e w i t h t h e n a me “R i char d E ar l T eac h I I I

. ” W hen as ked for t he car ’ s reg ist rat i on and i ns ur ance , Pi er ce s ai d t hatthe ca rw as r ent ed byhi s gi r l fr i end and he di d not have t he r ent al document s w i t h hi m . H e expl ai ned th a t h e w a s tra v e lin g f

ro m H a rle m w h e re h e h a d d ro p p e d o f f h is s i s t ert o s ee he rboy fr i end. W hen as ked aboutt he “c l ut t er ” i n t he p a ss e n g e r se a t, P ier c e to ld B rie tzk e “ th a t th o se item s w e re n o t in th e s e a t e a rl ie r, w h e n h is s is te r w a s ri d in g in th e c a r.” (A p p . 6 .) B r i et zke i ns t ruct ed Pi er ce t o s t ep outand w al k t o the r earof t he ca r . Pi er ce com pl i ed, l eavi ng t he dri ver ’ s door open. D ur i ng a pat
- dow n s ear ch, B r i et zke fel t “‘ w hat [he] bel i eved to b e paper m oney . ’ ” ( A pp. 6. ) B r i et zke a s ked Pi er ce how m uch moneyhe h a d o n h im , an d P ier c e re sp o n d e d b y p u lli n g th e m o n e y o u t o f h is pocket

. B r i et zke t es t i fi ed thathe s aw “a w ad of cas h” thatw as
“ b ro k e n d o w n in to in c re m e n ts o f f o ld s.” (A p p . 1 0 3 .) P ier c e sa id th a t h e h a d f

o ld e d th e m o n e yth a t w a yh im se lf “ [ t]o c o u n t it , to counti tfas t
. ” ( A pp. 104. ) B r i et zke t esti fied thathe had s een m o n e yf o ld e d lik e th is b yd ru g se llers . (A p p . 1 0 4 .) A ll o f th is a c t i v i t y a p p e a r s i n t h e v i d e o c o n s i s t e n tw i t h t h e t e s t i m o n y. Pi er ce pul l ed outa ca rr ent al agr eementfr om hi s pockett hat had the name “Tam ar a L undy ” as the r ent i ng par t yand des cr i bed t he r ent ed ca ras a gr eyD odge I nt r epi d, w hi ch w as nott he ca r Pi er ce w as dr i vi ng. ( A pp. 105- 06. ) W hen B r i et zke as ked hi m t he name of hi s gi r l fr i end, Pi er ce c oul d not gi ve her l as tname. ( A pp. 7. ) B r i et zke r etur ned the money and t he r ent al agr eementt o Pi er ce a n d in stru c ted h im to sit b y th e g u a rd ra il b e h in d P ier c e ’s c a r w h ile he di d a b a c k g r o u n d c h e c k o n t h e d r i v e r ’ s l i c e n s e . ( App

. 1 0 8; A p p . 7 .) A t th is p o int, the v ideo sh o w s M ea d o w s ap p roa ch P ierce’s ca r w i t h t he nar cot i cs dog. M eadow s t es t i fi ed s he w as there5 b e c a u s e Br i e t z k e h a d r e q u e s t e d t h a ts h e p e r f o r m “ a K9 exami nat i on” of the ca r . ( A pp. 139. ) B yw ayof bac k g r ound, M eado w s t est i fi ed tha t s h e and K -9 C ole had b een ce rt i fi ed as a t eam si nce 2004. T hei r or i gi nal cert i fi cat i on cons i s t ed of 320 hour s o f t r a i n i n g , a n d t h e yr e c e i v e 8 h o u r s o f r e c e r t i f i c a t i on tra in in g o n a m o n th lyb a sis . (A p p . 1 3 6 -3 8 .) A c c o rd in g to M eadow s , the si gns t hat i ndi cat e a pos i t i ve al er ti ncl ude s ni ffi ng; “an i ncr ease in t ai l w ag”; “gett i ng exci t ed”; and “t aki ng deep b rea ths.” (A p p . 1 4 1

. ) M eadow s des cr i bed w hat happene d aft er s he gave C ol e the c o m m a n d to s n if

f

. I n t hi s s peci fi c s cena r i o, K 9 C ol e r es p o n d ed t o t he t runk ar ea a nd t hen pr ocee ded t o t h e r i ghts i de, t he pas s engers i de of the t ar getvehi cl e. . . . H e then w e n t to th e f

ro n t p a ss e n g e r sid e d o o r. A t th a t p o in t, K 9 C ol e j um ped up ont o hi s hi nd l egs and pr ocee ded t o r e a c h h i s n o s e i n t o t h e v e h i c l e . Th e p a s s e nger s i d e wi n d o w wa s o p e n a tt h e t i me o f t h e s t o p . He w as r eac hi ng t ow ar d t he das hboar d, i f y ou w i l l , ar ea o f th e v e h ic le

. I f y ou r eca l l fr om t he vi deo, C ol e w as w al ki ng and s uddenl yhi s behavi orchange d. I t occurr ed w hen he w entup hi gh and pr ocee ded t o r eac h, s n iff i nt o t he v e h icle . F ro m th a t p o in t o n K 9 C o le, I g a v e h im h is lea d . I ra re lyd ire c t h im a n d p u ll h im in a sp e c if ic sc e n a rio o r p u ll h im in a c e rta in d ire c tio n . K 9 C o le r etr ea ted, came back t ow ar ds t he trunk of the vehi cl e. ( A pp. 140. ) A s ked ab o u therobs ervat i ons of C ol e’ s behavi oron t he pas s engers i de of the ca r , M eadow s t es t i fi ed, W h e n t h e d o g w e n t u p o n h is h in d le g s , I im m ed iat elyrec o g n ized that C o le ha s an o d o r. H e’s detect ed, for exam ple, an o do r. H e has i nter est s. H e’ s on t o s om ethi ng.6 (A p p . 1 4 0 -41

. ) M eadow s and C ol e then pr ocee ded ar ound t he bac k of the c a r a n d u p t h e d r i v e r ’ s s i d e , whe r e Col e j u mpe d i n t h r o u gh t he open door

. M eadow s t es t i fi ed that C ol e i m m edi at el ys t opped and c h e c k e d “ th e se a m s o f th e g lo v e b o x a n d su rro u n d in g th e a ir v en ts. ” (A p p . 1 4 1

. ) M ea d o w s testi fied : “T h at t o m e is a v ery m aj orkeyi ndi cat or . I tconfi r m ed i n m ym i nd w hatt he dog w as w or ki ng t ow ar ds w hen he w as out s i de t he vehi cl e on the pas s enger s i de w hen he j um ped up on t he r earr i ghtand w as at t empt i ng t o go sn iff into the v eh icl e.” (A p p . 1 4 1 -14 2

. ) C ol e j um ped i nt o t he back sea t and “c ont i nued t o w or k, sn iffing the a rea . T h ere w as a lso fo o d in the b ac k sea t of the c ar. B i r d s eed w as everyw her e, forw hat everr eas on, i ns i de t he vehi cl e. I di d pul l hi m off of t hat food t o s t ay focus ed on t as k

. . . . ” ( A pp. 1 4 2

. ) M e a d o ws t e s t i f

i e d t h a ta tt h a tp o i n t , s h e “ wa s c e r t a i n t h a tK9 C o le h a d d e te c te d th e o d o r o f n a rc o tic s . H e h a d d o n e h i s j o b .” (A p p . 1 4 2

. ) M ea d o w s an d C o le w alke d aro u n d the f ron t of the c ar, w her e att he pas s engers i de w i ndow , C ol e “j um p[ed] up t w i ce on h is h in d leg s a g a in re a c h in g f o r a n o d o r.” ( A p p . 1 4 2 .) A t th is p o in t, M e a d o w s c o n c lu d e d th e K

- 9 e x a m in a tio n a n d re p o rte d to B ri e tz k e . T he vi deo i s cons i s t entw i t h M eadow s ’ test i m onyabout C ol e’ s act i ons , w hi ch ar e r eadi l yvi ew abl e w hen he i s out s i de the car . A s s he t es t i fi ed, t he vi deo s how s t hat once Col e al er t s i n t he i ni t i al s econds of the s ear ch, w hen he i s out s i de the pas s enger w i ndow , M e a d o ws g i v e s h i m hi s l e a d a s s h e t e s t i f i e d i ti s her pr act i ce t o do. C ol e then moves a r ound t he trunk of t he car , up t he l efts i de of i t , and att he open doorC ol e goes r i ghtin. O n ce the dog i s i ns i de, w hatcan be s een thr ough t he ba ck w indow of the sta tio n a r y c a r( C o le ’ s w a v in g ta il a n d g e n e r a l m o v e m e n ts ) s u p p o r ts M e a d o w s’ te stim o n ya b o u t h o w th e d o g w a s b e h a v in g . W h ile M ea d o w s an d C o le are a t th e c ar, th e v ideo rec o rds B ri etzk e’s comm ent s on t he r es ul t s of t he backgr ound chec k, w hi ch r evea l ed pr i ordrug arr es t s . T he vi deo r ecor ds M eadow s t el l i ng B r i et zke h o w C o le ha d alerted , B ri etzk e relati n g the inf o rm ati o n o n P ierce’s pr i orarrest s and di s pos i t i ons , and the tw o offi cer s di s cus s i ng t he abs ence of anypaperw or k i ndi cat i ng t hatPi er ce ha d t he r i ghtt o be7 dri ving t he car. B ri et zke co nfron t s Pier ce of f cam era abou tt his , t el l i ng hi m t hatt he ca rcoul d be s t ol en, w hi ch Pi er ce de ni es . T hen B r i et zke a nd M eadow s go overt o t he ca rand s ear ch i t
. T hey t es t i fi ed thatt heyfou n d ap pr oxi m at el yone ki l ogr am of cocai ne and over$20, 000 i n cas h i n t he gl ove box. B r i et zke a r r es t ed Pi er ce a t th is p o in t. II. T he D i s t r i ctC our tfound t hat C ol e’ s s ni ff w as nota s ear ch w ith in th e m e a n in g o f th e F o u rth A m e n d m e n t b e c a u se C o le i nst i ncti vely j um ped i n t he car, on his ow n and w i t ho ut M eado w s’ assistan ce , thro u g h a d o o r P ierce lef t op en . T h e D is tr ic t C o u rt found thatt he r ecor d evi dence es t abl i s hed thatM eadow s di d not

“ p u sh , d ire c t, or o rd e r C o le i n to th e c a r,” a n d th a t C o le a ler ted to th e p a ss e n g e r’s sid e a n d d a sh b o a rd a re a o f th e c a r o n c e h e w a s in it

. (A p p . 1 5

. ) In d e ter m in in g th a t C o le ’ s “ in ter io r sn if f s” w e re n o t a se a rc h , the D istric t C o u rt w a s p e rsu a d e d b yth e re a so n in g se t f o rth i n U ni t ed S tates v. H

ut chi ns on , 471 F. Supp. 2d 497 ( M

. D

. Pa. 2007 ), w her e the def

endant , l i ke Pi er ce, ent er ed a c ondi t i onal g u il typ lea a n d p rese rve d the issu e o f th e leg ali tyo f a K -9 d o g ’s “i nt er i or s ni ffs , ” w hi ch l ed t o t he re coveryof s ubs t ant i al quant i t i es of m ar i j uana f r om t he bac k s eatof the van he w as dr i vi ng. I ndeed, t he D i s t r i ct C our t , Pi er ce, and t he governm ent agr ee that H ut chi ns on , an d the c ase s cit ed in it , p rov ide the lega l fram ew o rk f o r d e c id in g w h e n a n in te ri o r d o g s n if f tr a n s f o rm s in to a “ s e a rc h .” ( Ap p . 1 4 ; Ap p e l l a n t ’ s Br

. 1 2 ; Ap p e l l e e ’ s Br

. 1 5

- 1 6

. ) Al t h o u g h we a f f irm e d in a n o t p re c e d e n tial o p in io n , w e d id n o t d isc u ss th is is s u e . U ni t ed Stat es v. H

ut chi ns on , 3 1 6 F ed

. A p p ’x 1 3 7 (3 d C ir

. 2 0 0 9 ). W e fi nd t hatt he di s t r i ctcour t ’ s deci s i on i n H ut chi ns on corr ect l yappl i es t h e g o v ern i ng l aw t o t he fa ct s germ ane t o t he Four t h A m endmenti s s ue. T h e Supr eme C our thas addr es s ed the us e of tr ai ned dogs t o s ni ff f ori l l egal drugs i n var i ous fac tual cont ext s . I n U

ni t ed Stat es v. P l ace , 4 6 2 U

. S

. 6 9 6 (19 8 3 ), the C o u rt appl i ed the Ter r

y s t op- and- fr i s k pr i nci pl es t o dog s ni ffs of l uggage: “[ T ]h e canine sni ff i s s u i g e n e r is

. W e ar e aw ar e of no other8 in v e stig a tiv e p ro c e d u re th a t is so lim ited b o th in th e m a n n e r in w hi ch the i nform at i on i s o b tai ned and i n t he cont entof the i nform at i on r evea l ed byt he pr ocedur e. ” I d. a t 7 0 7

. C on sist ent l yt he Supr eme C our thas hel d t hatan ext er i or c a n in e sn if

f o f a c a r d u rin g a law f

u l tra f f ic sto p d o e s n o t a m o u n t to a “ s e a rc h ” u n d e r t h e F o u rt h A m e n d m e n t. I l l i nois v. C abal l es , 543 U .S . 4 0 5 , 4 1 0 (2 0 0 5 ) (“ A d o g sn if f c o n d u c ted d u rin g a c o n c e d e d ly l aw ful t r aff

i c stop t hatr evea l s no i nfor m at i on ot hert han the l ocati on of a subst ance thatno i nd i vidual has anyri gh tt o p ossess d o e s n o t v io late th e F o u rth A m e n d m e n t.”); I ndi anapol is v. E dm ond , 531 U

. S. 32, 40 ( 2000) ( s t at i n g that a dog sni ff of t he ext er i orof a c ari s “much l es s i nt rus i ve than a typi cal s ear ch”) (q u o ta tio n o m i t t e d ). T h e f e d e ra l c o u rt s h a v e f

o llo w e d s u it. See e. g. , U ni t ed Stat es v. B r anch , 537 F. 3d 328 ( 4t h C i r . 2008) ( a dog s ni ff i s nota s ear ch and ther efor e r equi r es no addit i onal ju stif ica tio n if it o c c u rs d u rin g a law f

u l tra f f ic s to p ); U

ni t ed Stat es v. O l i vera- Mendez , 484 F. 3d 505 ( 8t h C i r . 2007) ( ext er i ors ni ff t aki ng pl ace dur i ng a tr aff i c s t op di d notamount t o a s ear ch eve n t hough t he dog jum p ed an d pl ace d hi s paw s on t he ca rs ever al t i m es ; s ni ff t ook l es s t han a mi nut e, t he dog’s cont act w i t h carw as m i ni m al and i nci dent al , and t he sni ff di d not i nvol ve ent er i ng t he c a r); U ni t ed Stat es v. Jens en , 4 2 5 F .3 d 6 9 8 (9 th C ir . 2 0 0 5 ), c e rt. deni ed , 547 U

. S. 1056 ( 2006) ( us e of a drug- s ni ffi n g d og dur i ng a v a lid tra f

f ic s to p d o e s n o t itse lf

c o n stitu te a “ se a rc h ” ); U ni t ed Stat es v. H

ol l om an , 1 1 3 F

. 3 d 1 9 2 (11 th C ir

. 1 9 9 7 ) (ap p ell ate c o u rt aff i r m ed t he deni al of defendant ’ s m ot i on t o s uppr es s drugs s ei zed beca us e t he dog s ni ff w as not a “se ar ch”; t he def endanthad r efus ed to p erm ita se arc h af

ter he w as law fu ll ystop p ed ). I ti s al s o w el l

- es t abl i s hed that , l ooki ng att he t ot al i t yof the ci r cumst ance s , a dog’ s pos i t i ve al er tw hi l e s ni ffi ng t he ext er i orof th e c a r p ro v id e s a n o f

f ice r w ith th e p ro b a b le c a u se n e c e s s a ryto s e a rc h th e c a r w ith o u t a w a rr a n t. E

. g. , Kar nes v. Skr ut s ki , 62 F. 3d 4 8 5 , 4 9 8 (3d C ir

. 1 9 9 5 ) (“ [ I] t is clear tha t th e d rug d o g ’s alert w o u ld p re se n t p ro b a b le c a u se f o r a se a rc h .”); Uni t e d

S t a t e s v. Mas s ac , 867 F. 2d 174, 176 ( 3d C i r . 1989) ( “W hen the alertw as g iv e n b yth e d o g , w e a re sa tisf ied th a t, a t lea st w h e n c o m b in e d w ith the o ther k n o w n circu m stan ce s, p rob ab le ca u se e x ist ed to arres t. ”); Un i t e d S ta t e s v . Wi l l i a ms , 2006 U

. S. D i s t
. L E X I S 81010, at*259 ( W

. D

. Pa. 2006) ( “O nce the ‘ hi t ’ occurr ed, t he o ff i cer s had p rob ab le ca u se . . . . ”). M ovi ng t o t he part i cul ar i s s ue befor e us , t he i nt er i ors ni ffs and al er t s t hatl ed t o t he di s coveryof nar cot i cs , both the H ut chi ns on deci s i on and t he D i s t r i ct C our t ’ s opi ni on her e r ej ect i ng P ier c e ’s s u p p re ss io n a rg u m e n ts p a rticu lar lyre lied o n th e T e n th C i r cui t ’ s r eas oni ng i n U ni t ed Stat es v. St one th a t a tra in e d n a rc o tic dog’ s i ns t i nct i ve ac t i on of j um pi ng i nt o t he ca rdoes notvi ol at e the F o u rt h A m e n d m e n t. 866 F. 2d 359, 364 ( 10t h C i r . 1989)

. Per for ce, “i ns t i nct i ve” i m pl i es t he dog ent er s t he ca rw i t houtas s i s t ance , f a c ili tatio n , o r o th e r in ten tio n a l ac tio n b yits h a n d le r . T h e T e n th C i r cui t r ece nt l yr eaf

fi r m ed St one i n U

ni t ed Stat es v. V

as quez , 555 F. 3d 923 ( 10t h C i r . 2009) , not i ng, “w e have uphel d t he l egal i t yof su ch a sn iff d u ri n g a law fu l deten ti o n w h en , as h ere , (1) the d o g ’s l eap i nt o t he car w as i ns t i nctual r ather t han or ches t r at ed and ( 2) t he off i cers did not as k the dri ver t o open t he point of ent ry such as a hat chbac k ora w i ndow , us ed byt he dog. ” I d. at930 ( ci t i ng St one , 8 6 6 F .2 d a t 3 6 4 ; cf

. U ni t ed Stat es v. W

i nni ngham , 140 F. 3d 1328, 1330- 31 ( 10t h C i r . 1998) )

. T he Ei ght h C i r cui tci t ed t o St one in its r eas oni ng i n U

ni t ed Stat es v. Lyons , 4 8 6 F

. 3 d 3 6 7 (8th C ir

. 2 0 0 7 ), w her e t he K

- 9 dog unders crut i ny , C apone, “s tuck hi s head thr ough t he open pa s s enger - s i de w i ndow and then sat dow n bes i de the fr ont passeng er doo r, his i nd i cat i on t hat he had fou nd t he st rongest s our ce of

t he odorof nar cot i cs . ” I d. at 3 7 0

. T he off

i cer s t hen s ear ched the van a nd fo u n d 1 0 6 pounds of m ar i j uana a nd a l ar ge s um of ca s h. T he ci r cui tcour thel d t hatt he tr oop er handl i ng a nar cot i cs dog per form i ng a K

- 9 i nv esti gat i on “di d notcr eat e the oppor tuni t yfort he dog t o br eac h t he i nt er i orof the vehi cl e. ” I d. at373. Si gni fi cant l y , i n L yon s t he ent i r e s t op w as rec o rded on v ideo , w h ich th e c o u rtfo u n d co n firm ed “the d istri ct co u rt ’s det e rmi n a t i o n th a t[ C apone] w oul d have ul t i m at el yi ndi cat ed on the van eve n i f he ha d nots tuck hi s head i ns i de the w i ndow

. ” I d. See als o Un i t e d S ta t e s v . Wi l l i a ms , 2010 U

. S. D i s t
. L E X I S 12303, at *22 ( D

. M i nn. F eb

. 1 , 2010) ( s t at i ng t hat“the fa ctt hatt he p a ss e n g e r w in d o w o f th e v e h icle w a s o p e n , cre a tin g a n o p p o rtu n ity fort he dog t o br eac h t he i nt er i or of t he vehi cl e, di d notr endert he se a rc h u n law f

u l); U ni t ed Stat es v. McKoy , 2 0 0 7 U

. S

. D ist

. L E X IS 2 0 2 3 7 , at * 2 0 ( D .D .C . 2 0 0 7 ) (n o tin g th a t th e d o g ’s “ c o n d u c t in j um pi ng i n to the [ca r ] w as i ns t i nct i ve and w as notfac i l i t at ed by10 p o li ce o ff

icers”); U

ni ted Stat es v. W

at s on , 783 F. Supp. 258, 265 ( E

. D

. V a. 1992) ( s t at ing thatt her e w as “no evi dence t hatt he dog w as e n co u rag ed to jum p in the ca r byit s h an d ler”). W her e dec i s i ons h ave he l d t hatan i nt er i ors ni ff w as uncons t i tut i onal , t he court s have c oncl uded thatt he off i cer
“ f a c ilita te d o r e n c o u ra g e d ” th e d o g ’s e n tr yin to th e c a r. E

. g. , U ni t ed Stat es v. W

i nni ngh am , 1 4 0 F

. 3 d 1 3 2 8 , 1 3 3 1 (10 th C ir

. 1 9 9 8 ) (sup p ressing d rug s fo u n d fo ll o w ing an interi o r sniff w h ere t he off i cer s l acke d anyr eas onabl e s us pi ci on t hatt he van c ont ai ned d ru g s; a n d w h e re th e yo p e n e d th e d o o r, a llo w e d th e d o o r to re m a in o p en w h il e w ait ing fo r th e d rug d o g to arrive; an d w h ere the d o g ’s h a n d ler u n lea sh e d th e d o g a s th e ya p p ro a c h e d th e v a n ); Stat e v. Fr eel , 32 P. 3d 1219, 1225 (K an . C t. A pp. 2001) ( fi ndi ng t he i nt eri o rs ni ff t o be a s ear ch, beca us e the off i cer“enc our aged the d o g to en ter i n to the ca r w h en it h ad n o t al erted o n the e x teri o r”); Stat e v. W

ars aw , 956 P. 2d 139, 143 ( N

. M

. C t. A pp. 1997) ( di s t i ngui s hi ng St one , s t at i ng t hatt he off i cer“r eac h ed int o t he t runk t o r emove t he gl as s - l aden c arpetbeca us e he e xpect ed the n a rc o tic s d o g to ju m p in th e re ” ). F r o m o u r r e v i e w o f

t h e r e c o r d , i n c l u d i n g t h e v i d e o t a p e , we se e n o e rro r in th e D istric t C o u rt’s f in d in g th a t C o le a ler ted to nar cot i cs found i n Pi er ce’ s g love box, j um ped thr ough an open doorand al er t ed t o t he fr ont pas s engers eatand gl ove box ar ea, and in s o d o in g a c ted in stin c tiv e lya n d w ith o u t f a c ili tatio n b yh is han dler , C orporal M eado w s. H er t est i m on y t hat once C ole al ert s, sh e d o e s n o t lea d h im b u t g iv e s h im h is le a d , is c re d ib le a n d v isib le on t he vi deo. A nd w e appl y t he cons i der abl e bodyof j ur i s prudence exami ned above t o concl ude thatC ol e’ s i nt er i ors ni ffs , as a natur al m i gr at i on fr om hi s i ni t i al ext er i ors ni ffs , di d notcons t i tut e a s ear ch re q u ir in g a w a rr a n t o r p ro b a b le c a u s e . M or eover , beca us e the vi d eo and t es t i m onys uppor tt he D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s fi ndi ng t hatC ol e i ni t i al l y al er t ed t o t he out s i de of Pi er ce’ s cari n t he ar ea of t he fr ont pas s enger s eat , t he r emand t hat Pi er ce i s as ki ng forw oul d i nevi t abl yr es ul ti n a pr o f or m a exer ci s e. T he D i s t r i ctC our t found t hatC ol e al er t ed t o t he out s i de of the ca r ( s ee e . g. , A pp. 13) , w hi ch prov ides pr obabl e ca us e fora pol i ce o f f i c e r t o s e a rc h th e in te ri o r o f th e c a r. See M

as s ac , 867 F. 2d atT he govern m ent ’ s i ni t i al poi nti n i t s br i ef i s t hatPi er ce 2 wa i v e d t h e a r g u me n t h e ma k e s n o w, t o wi t t h a t M e a d o ws fac i l i t at ed C ol e’ s entr yi nt o t he ca rbyext endi n g C o l e’ s l eas h. B eca us e w e fi nd t he D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s r eas oni ng embra ced M eadow s ’ conductas a w hol e, and thati texpli cit lyfound M ea d o w s d id no t “f

ac il it ate” C o le’s en try into th e c a r, P ierce’s narr ow ar gum entb ef

o re us i s s uffi ci ent l yconnec t ed t o t he ar gum ent s he made befor e the D i s t r i ctC our tt hatt here w as no w aive r.
11 176. Pi er ce does not chal l enge thatfi ndi ng. W hetherone r eas ons th a t C o le’ s e n try in to th e c a r a n d in ter io r sn if f s d id n o t am o u n t to a s ear ch, orone r easo n s that C ol e’ s pos i t i ve al er tw hen he w as o u tsid e th e o p e n p a ss e n g e r w in d o w g a v e th e o f f ice rs p ro b a b le caus e t o s ear ch t he car , t he r es ul ti s t he s ame – C orpor al s B r i et zke and M ea d o w s conduct ed a c ons t i tut i onal s ear ch thaty i el ded the contr aband a nd cas h. W e af fi r m the r eas oni ng adopt ed byt he D istric t C o u rt. Fi ndi ng no vi ol at i on of the Four t h A me ndm ent , w e hol d t hat t he D i s t r i ctC our t pr oper l y deni ed Pi er ce’ s s uppr es s i on m ot i on and w e af fi r m t he j udgm entof convi ct i on. 2