During a civil forfeiture action, the court ruled that the dog alerted to cocaine adhering to the cash. This expert also testified that bills may contain as little as a millionth of a gram of cocaine, but that is many times more cocaine than is needed for a dog to alert. Alleged reaction of drug-sniffing dog to money was probative evidence that the money was involved in drug transactions, for purposes of forfeiture, but the relative strength of the evidence was weak. There was no testimony from the dog handler or anyone else familiar with the performance or reliability of the dog. When agents told the suspects that money in their possession would be tested with a narcotics detector dog, a seizure occurred.
Probable cause is required to justify seizure of items carried on one's person.
Evidence in this case did not establish probable cause, as the narcotic detector dog's reaction could not be used, as agents' original seizure was without reasonable suspicion. Sixth Circuit A warrantless seizure of cash, requiring probable cause, during a consent search of passenger's luggage in airport, occurred when the officer removed the currency from the luggage to take it for a canine sniff test. This seizure was unconstitutional. This fact was not considered either commonly known or readily determinable through unquestionably reliable sources. For purposes of forfeiture of currency, evidentiary value of narcotics dog's alert to the money was minimal in light of the extent of narcotics contamination of currency in circulation.