Opinion ID: 616288
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Probable Cause to Search the Vehicle

Text: Bowman's final argument on appeal is that the dog-sniff search was unreliable and thus could not serve as probable cause for the physical search of the car, which led to the discovery of the cocaine. Bowman acknowledges that if, Jake, the drug-detection dog, is reliable, there was probable cause for the search. Law enforcement officials require probable cause to search a vehicle without a warrant. United States v. Ameling, 328 F.3d 443, 448 (8th Cir.2003). Probable cause exists where there is a fair probability that contraband or evidence of a crime will be found in a particular place. United States v. Donnelly, 475 F.3d 946, 954 (8th Cir.2007). Assuming that the dog is reliable, a dog sniff resulting in an alert on a container, car, or other item, standing alone, gives an officer probable cause to believe that there are drugs present. Id. (quoting United States v. Sundby, 186 F.3d 873, 875-76 (8th Cir. 1999)). Bowman argues that Jake is not reliable because he has a history of alerting to the presence of narcotics when the odor is residual. Bowman does not dispute that Jake is trained and certified to conduct sniff searches; he trains 4-5 hours per week and is re-certified annually. Jake's handler testified at length about Jake's training and significant experience in the field. Moreover, Jake does not have a significant history of false alerts to the presence of narcotics. There is simply no basis upon which to conclude that Jake is inherently unreliable and that there was no probable cause for the physical search of Bowman's car.