Opinion ID: 2770748
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Charley’s Training Records

Text: Even if the unredacted training records for Charley (the dog) had been available, they would not have changed the district court’s finding that Charley was reliable. In United States v. Cedano-Arellano, a dog sniff case with similar facts, we found that “while defense counsel should have been given access to the requested documents, there was nothing in those documents that would have changed the ultimate determination that the agents” had reasonable suspicion to search the vehicle. 332 F.3d 568, 574 (9th Cir. 2003). The same conclusion applies with equal force here. The government produced records that revealed Charley’s scores, which were nearly all passing marks. It redacted the comments on Charley’s performance and how the training was conducted. On appeal, we have the benefit of the unredacted records and can readily see that the redacted comments are overwhelmingly positive. If anything, the redacted comments strengthen the district court’s finding that Charley was reliable.1 The facts here contrast sharply with those in United States v. Thomas, where we reversed a denial of a motion to suppress because of the district court’s reliance on redacted training records. 726 F.3d 1086 (9th Cir. 2013). In Thomas, we did not have the unredacted records, and thus we “[could not] say that there is ‘nothing in those documents that would have changed the ultimate determination that the agents had [probable cause] to support their search.’” Id. at 1097 (first alteration added, second alteration in original) (quoting Cedano-Arellano, 332 F.3d at 574). Moreover, Beny-A, the dog in Thomas, is no Charley. Among other differences, Beny-A and his handler received failing scores on every single performance record in various categories, and received failing scores around 6 percent of the time. See Excerpts of Record of Appellant at 216-31, United States v. Thomas, 726 F.3d 1086 (9th Cir. 2013) (No. 11-10451), ECF No. 42. The 1 The majority states that the relevant question is not Charley’s reliability, but the government’s responsibility to provide Salazar with a fair hearing. But to the extent that this is a discovery issue, it bears mention that defense counsel did not object below to the redactions. As we explained in United States v. Henderson, when the government withholds discovery information based on a claim of privilege, “a district court must hold an in camera hearing whenever the defendant makes a minimal threshold showing that disclosure would be relevant.” 241 F.3d 638, 645 (9th Cir. 2000) (quoting United States v. Spires, 3 F.3d 1234, 1238 (9th Cir. 1993)) (internal quotation marks omitted). By failing to object or request an in camera review, Salazar failed to make such a showing. Moreover, Salazar’s failure to object arguably limits us to plain error review, as the government argues. In any event, even under harmless error review, Salazar’s claim fails. government in Thomas also conceded that the redacted comments likely would include “critiques of the team’s competence as well as discussions about areas for improvement.” Thomas, 726 F.3d at 1097. Charley, on the other hand, received failing scores less than one-half of one percent of the time, and the redacted comments on his records are overwhelmingly positive. The redacted comments here—nearly all along the lines of “Great job! Team works very well together” and “Canine has a great nose and strong alert”—generally praise Charley’s performance. The redactions do not undermine the probable cause analysis, and any error in redacting the records is therefore harmless. See Florida v. Harris, 133 S. Ct. 1050, 1057 (2013) (observing that “evidence of a dog’s satisfactory performance in a certification or training program can itself provide sufficient reason to trust his alert”).