Opinion ID: 2997534
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Methodology of Bax’s Sniff Alert

Text: Calhoun’s next contention is that the “imprecise testing methodology” undertaken by the DEA agents and Bax’s handler failed to prevent the possibility of cross-contamination. Thus, even assuming that Bax is reliable, the possibility that a source independent of Calhoun’s cash triggered Bax’s alert might deprive it of any probative weight. Calhoun makes several related arguments in support of this contention. First, Calhoun argues that the government agents did not adhere to the methodologies recommended by Dr. Mesloh, and thus the conduct of the dog sniff was somehow defective. See, e.g., Mesloh et al., Sniff Test at 713. Relatedly, Calhoun claims that the government failed to provide a package of “control” currency in order to rule out the possibility that Bax would alert to general circulation currency. Calhoun also contends that the agents failed to safeguard against possible cross-contamination of his cash 8 This also cuts against Calhoun’s assertion that he had been accumulating his cash hoard since the mid-1990s, for any tainted cash he may have been stuffing in his mattress or cookie jar over the years would have long since lost any detectable odor of methyl benzoate, even if bundled or kept in closed spaces. See Rose Aff. ¶ 2, Gov’t App. at 22. 26 No. 02-2899 hoard (perhaps the agents had handled other illicit substances recently but failed properly to sanitize themselves) and that the agents failed to ensure that the suitcase in which they placed his cash was free of narcotics residue or odor. In support of these arguments, he offers his own conjecture and the methodologies recommended by Dr. Mesloh. It is true that the record does not contain great detail regarding the methodology of Bax’s sniff search. But at the summary judgment stage, Calhoun failed to challenge the methodology used by the DEA agents and Bax’s handler in conducting the dog sniff, nor did he offer any contrary evidence of his own. The government asserts that it would have provided more detailed evidence addressing Calhoun’s contentions had Calhoun properly raised these arguments in opposition to summary judgment. It is axiomatic, however, that Calhoun—the party opposing summary judgment—had the burden of coming forward with properly supported arguments or specific evidence to show a genuine issue of material fact. Celotex Corp., 477 U.S. at 324. Instead, Calhoun accepted the government’s facts as true and only now offers arguments challenging the agents’ methodology. For example, Calhoun posits the sniff search methodology must be improper because the government failed to offer evidence that the agents employed a new plastic bag, sealed the plastic bag, or cleaned the suitcase before the sniff search. This turns summary judgment on its head. The government already came forward with evidence regarding the methodology of the sniff search, and Calhoun never disputed or challenged this evidence before the district court. Calhoun’s speculative musings do not amount to a genuine issue of material fact requiring a remand for trial. See, e.g., Liu v. T & H Mach., Inc., 191 F.3d 790, 796 (7th Cir. 1999) (citation omitted). Our order requesting additional briefing on the methodology the agents employed was intended to No. 02-2899 27 focus the arguments of the parties (particularly Calhoun, as he was acting pro se at the time) on issues potentially dispositive in this case. We did not invite the parties to sidestep longstanding rules of summary judgment and waiver. The time for Calhoun to challenge the methodology and offer evidence was at the summary judgment stage, not for the first time on appeal. Cf. United States v. $174,206.00 in U.S. Currency, 320 F.3d 658, 662 (6th Cir. 2003) (“That the burden [post-CAFRA] is on the government does not change the fact that, if the government meets its burden, it will prevail unless the claimant[ ] introduce[s] evidence to support [his] case.”). Even if Calhoun has not waived a challenge of the methodology, we conclude that the evidence presented in the record is enough to establish that there was nothing untoward about the methodology employed by the DEA agents and Officer Arrigo. In the first place, we disagree that any failure to apply Dr. Mesloh’s recommended methodology somehow invalidates Bax’s sniff search and alert. While we have no reason to doubt that Dr. Mesloh’s recommended methods may be sound, the failure to apply them does not indicate that the methods undertaken by the agents were improper—especially since Dr. Mesloh’s recommendations were, in part, designed to respond to judicial adoption of the currency contamination theory. As set forth in detail above, we decline to accept Calhoun’s currency contamination arguments in light of the empirical information showing that trained dogs alert to methyl benzoate, not cocaine. And, as we concluded above, Bax is a trained and reliable narcotics (not currency) detector dog, so we do not see how the use of a control package of “clean” currency would have made any difference. See Limares, 269 F.3d at 798. Calhoun’s remaining contentions also lack merit. In the absence of any contrary evidence offered by Calhoun, we conclude that the methodology used by the DEA agents and Officer Arrigo was not defective. The record discloses that 28 No. 02-2899 the agents, outside the presence of Officer Arrigo and Bax, put Calhoun’s money into a plastic bag and placed the bag into one of many empty suitcases in the DEA office. Officer Arrigo then commanded Bax to search, and the dog sniffed around the room before alerting to the suitcase. The agents removed the plastic bag from the suitcase and Bax continued to alert to the bag, not the suitcase. Evidence in the record regarding other sniff searches in the same office underscores the conclusion that the mere possibility of cross-contamination does not deprive Bax’s alert of probative weight. The government cites two incident reports detailing sniff searches by Bax in the same office in the two days immediately following the confiscation of Calhoun’s cash. On September 6, 2000, Bax alerted to a suitcase containing methamphetamine that had been placed in the DEA office along with three other suitcases. Likewise, on September 7, Bax alerted to a large sum of currency ($18,345) that had been hidden in the drawer of one of the desks in the same office. (See Gov’t App. at 56-61.) The government also introduced a voluminous account of Bax’s other sniff searches over the years. (R. 15, Ex. O.) This record indicates that Bax had undertaken more than 40 other sniff searches in the same office, and each time Bax alerted only to the location in which the suspect currency or narcotics were hidden (whether a suitcase, file cabinet, or desk drawer). Id. No evidence suggests that, in any of these instances, Bax falsely alerted to other objects in the DEA office, which presumably he would have if these objects had been sufficiently contaminated or if agents had employed sloppy methodology. The volatility of methyl benzoate and the quantity needed to trigger an alert suggests that whatever minute particles of cocaine that might remain in the office would not lead to a false alert. Furthermore, no evidence suggests that the DEA actually stores narcotics or contraband in the office that might conceivably lead to false alerts. No. 02-2899 29 While not conclusive, these points reinforce our conclusion that Bax is reliable9 and that the likelihood of cross-contamination leading to a false alert was extremely low in Calhoun’s search. Calhoun has offered nothing other than conjecture to convince us otherwise. See Bell, 367 F.3d at 707 (“Inferences that are supported by only speculation or conjecture will not defeat a summary judgment motion.”). Contrary to Calhoun’s speculations, it is far more likely that Bax alerted to the only thing in the room exuding sufficient odor to trigger an alert—Calhoun’s cash hoard. Given all of these facts and Calhoun’s failure to raise an effective challenge on this basis before the district court, we conclude that Calhoun’s attack on the methodology of the sniff search fails. C. Calhoun’s Testimony and Other Factors Supporting Forfeiture The final issue upon which we sought additional briefing is the impact of Calhoun’s false explanations and the inferences, if any, to be drawn therefrom. The government argues that Calhoun’s income and stated expenditures, as documented in his tax records, show that Calhoun could not possibly have earned the cash that he claims to have stockpiled over the years—his expenditures (including his $30,670 cash hoard) exceeded his stated income by at least $26,394 from 1998 to 2000. The government’s evidence and argument are premised on Calhoun’s filing of bankruptcy in 1998, in which he declared that he 9 Indeed, in the course of his duties at the airport, Bax conducted sniff searches of some 80,000 suitcases (checked bags, not planted in the DEA office), and only detected drugs two times. This underscores the conclusion that Bax has a discriminating nose. (R. 15, Ex. O.) 30 No. 02-2899 had no cash on hand (so the government began counting Calhoun’s earnings from 1998 to the date his cash was seized). In his opposition to summary judgment, Calhoun did not dispute any of the government’s detailed accounting of his income and expenditures. The district court granted summary judgment in part based on this obvious and substantial disparity between Calhoun’s expenditures and his reported income. Calhoun now claims on appeal that he did not give a false explanation for the source of his cash hoard. Calhoun offers three specific arguments in support of this claim. First, Calhoun artfully parses his response to a government interrogatory asking that Calhoun set forth the facts and documents supporting his position that the seized funds were not linked to illegal drug activities. Calhoun’s response was: See attached documents. In addition, the claimant’s tax returns support the claimant’s position that the funds were not monies furnished or intended to be furnished in exchange for a controlled substance, or were not monies used or intended to be used to facilitate a narcotics transaction. Calhoun claims that the highlighted “in addition” indicates the existence of documentary proof other than his tax returns, and therefore “the context of the answer makes clear that they [the “attached documents”] are different documents from Calhoun’s 1998-2000 tax returns. According to Calhoun, these mystery documents show that his explanation for his funds did not rest solely on his tax returns, so any disparity between his earnings and expenditures do not necessarily make his explanations false. Second, Calhoun alleges that he had begun saving cash in the mid-1990s, and thus the government should not have treated 1998 as a zero baseline from which to measure his expenditures against his reported income. He concedes that No. 02-2899 31 he failed to report these savings in his 1998 bankruptcy filing, in which he declared under penalty of perjury that he had no cash on hand. Calhoun also concedes that he may not have reported gambling winnings on his tax returns, but alleges that any failure to report these earnings does not lead to the conclusion that he falsely explained the source of his funds. We find none of these arguments convincing. As Calhoun admits, the “attached documents” were not submitted to the district court, nor are they part of the record on appeal. If these documents had existed, and Calhoun had ensured that they were part of the summary judgment record, matters might be different. But these documents are not before us in the record now, and their unexplained absence does not raise a disputed issue of material fact, especially when Calhoun failed to raise the issue before the district court. Likewise, Calhoun’s belated admission that he failed to account for his purported savings and gambling earnings in his bankruptcy filing and tax returns does not create a triable issue of fact that entitles him to a remand. It is true, as Calhoun concedes, that the false statements on his bankruptcy and tax filings may expose him to fines or sanctions unrelated to civil forfeiture. But it is also true that the court properly could draw inferences and grant summary judgment on the basis of the substantial and documented differences between the sources of income properly accounted for in Calhoun’s filings and his claimed sources of income (which he failed to substantiate). Cf. $174,206, 320 F.3d at 662 (“[E]vidence of legitimate income that is insufficient to explain the large amount of property seized, unrebutted by any evidence pointing to any other source of legitimate income or any evidence indicating innocent ownership, satisfies the burden imposed by [§ 881(a)(6)].”) (emphasis added). The district court inferred that Calhoun’s explanations about the sources of his cash hoard were demonstrably false. In the absence of any meaningful argument or evidence to the 32 No. 02-2899 contrary, it is hard to see how the district court could have come out any other way. Even if Calhoun had admitted his falsehoods in an affidavit submitted in opposition to summary judgment, Calhoun could not prevail on this basis. Summary judgment would be meaningless if litigants could manufacture genuine issues of material fact through self-serving and unsupported “admissions” materially different from positions taken in the past. This is why courts do not countenance the use of so-called “sham affidavits,” which contradict prior sworn testimony, to defeat summary judgment. See, e.g., Bank of Ill. v. Allied Signal Safety Restraint Sys., 75 F.3d 1162, 1168-69 (7th Cir. 1996) (“We have long followed the rule that parties cannot thwart the purposes of Rule 56 by creating ‘sham’ issues of fact with affidavits that contradict their prior depositions. . . . If such contradictions were permitted, . . . ‘the very purpose of the summary judgment motion—to weed out unfounded claims, specious denials, and sham defenses—would be severely undercut.’ ”) (internal citations omitted) (collecting authority). Although Calhoun’s representations on his bankruptcy and tax papers were not sworn testimony given in the course of litigation, Calhoun signed the documents under penalty of perjury. We do not see why the “sham affidavit” principle would not apply here—at least to the extent that Calhoun’s false statements and failure to account for his cash hoard (plus his failure to challenge the government’s version of the facts) easily support the inference that the government’s version of the facts was true.10 Calhoun can 10 Calhoun is not helped by caselaw regarding false or pretextual statements made in the employment discrimination context. See, e.g., St. Mary’s Honor Ctr. v. Hicks, 509 U.S. 502 (1993); Anderson v. Baxter Healthcare Corp., 13 F.3d 1120 (7th Cir. 1994). This line of authority teaches that a finding of pretext does not automati- (continued...) No. 02-2899 33 not conjure a triable factual issue on the basis of his newfound and convenient respect for the truth, particularly when this “truth” is unsupported by any evidence other than Calhoun’s say-so. D. The Totality of Circumstances Supports Forfeiture We conclude that the government has satisfied its burden to prevail on summary judgment. The totality of the circumstances in this case, including the issues discussed above, lead to only one reasonable conclusion—Calhoun’s cash hoard was substantially connected to illegal drug trafficking and properly subject to forfeiture. We have discussed at length the most important of these factors: Bax’s positive alert to Calhoun’s cash and Calhoun’s demonstratively false explanations regarding the source of his funds. The remaining factors present in this case also indicate that the government is entitled to summary judgment. For example, Calhoun’s explanations regarding his travel to Phoenix are suspect. On the day his cash was seized, Calhoun was traveling to Phoenix, a recognized source city for illegal narcotics. See, e.g., $22,474, 246 F.3d at 1216 (“Phoenix[ ] [is] a known source city for drugs.”); cf. United States v. Currency, U.S. $42,500.00, 283 F.3d 977, 981 (9th Cir. 2002) (giving weight to fact that claimant was “travel- 10 (...continued) cally entitle the plaintiff to judgment as a matter of law. So it is in this case—Calhoun’s false statements alone do not trigger summary judgment, but they certainly raise the inference that the government’s version of the facts is true (particularly when Calhoun offered no evidence to dispute those facts) and may be considered along with the other factors present in this case, particularly Bax’s positive alert to his cash. 34 No. 02-2899 ing from New York to San Diego, well known source cities for drugs”); United States v. $141,770.00 in U.S. Currency, 157 F.3d 600, 604 (8th Cir. 1998) (giving weight to fact that claimant was traveling from California, “a drug source state”). He had made frequent trips to Phoenix—seven trips within two months, not three as he claimed. Calhoun alleged that he stayed at the same hotel each trip (at “55th and the expressway”) but could not recall the hotel’s name; subpoenaed travel records indicate that Calhoun did not stay at any hotel at “55th and the expressway.” Yet he stayed in Phoenix at least 27 nights during the two months he had been traveling there (making his forgetfulness all the less credible). All of these inconsistencies are relevant in weighing whether the government has established its burden justifying forfeiture. See $242,484, 389 F.3d at 1164 (finding it proper to consider claimant’s inconsistent statements and changing stories in considering whether the government’s burden is met); $22,474, 246 F.3d at 1217 (“[Claimant’s] inconsistent statements about the money and his reasons for being in Phoenix tended to support an inference that the money was drug-related.”); United States v. $67,220.00 in U.S. Currency, 957 F.2d 280, 286 (6th Cir. 1992) (“[M]isstatements are probative of possible criminal activity.”). Calhoun’s travel schedule and arrangements were also suspicious. He always paid cash for one-way airplane tickets, which he usually purchased the same day of the flight (and sometimes only minutes before). As any savvy air traveler knows, this practice virtually guarantees higher fares, and someone in Calhoun’s position—unemployed and with no regular income for months—would seem especially unlikely to be a spendthrift under such circumstances. In addition, Calhoun’s travel schedule was haphazard—in some instances, he remained in Phoenix for over a week, but other times he stayed only overnight before returning to Chicago. The gaps between trips varied as well, with at least one No. 02-2899 35 instance in which Calhoun flew back to Phoenix the day after returning to Chicago. These factors are consistent with the travel habits of drug couriers, who apparently must be very flexible in their travel plans. Cf. $242,484, 389 F.3d at 1163 (holding that it was appropriate for the district court to consider the claimant’s travel arrangements in light of evidence that “drug couriers often travel on tickets purchased with cash, . . . and frequently change their return date, as [claimant] did twice in two days.”). Calhoun also suggested that he was moving to Phoenix permanently because he had lost his job in Chicago. As Calhoun points out, no evidence indicates that he was making that permanent move on the very day that his cash was seized (indeed, Calhoun left his car at the Midway Airport parking garage and did not have his driver’s license with him). But it is also true that Calhoun never explained why he was carrying a substantially large sum of money if his trip (like the others) was to be only temporary (and Calhoun testified that he had only spent $300-$700 on each of his prior trips). Cf. United States v. One Lot of U.S. Currency ($36,634), 103 F.3d 1048, 1055 (1st Cir. 1997) (“Carrying a large sum of cash is ‘strong evidence’ of [a connection to illegal drug activity] even without the presence of drugs or drug paraphernalia.”) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Other aspects of his testimony were suspicious as well. For example, one reason Calhoun gave for the move was his desire to pursue a romance with “Rochelle,” whose last name, phone number, and address he was unable to provide. He also claimed to have been searching for work in Phoenix but could provide no proof—not even the name of any of the prospective employers. Cf. $22,474, 246 F.3d at 1217. Moreover, Calhoun’s actions at the airport were suspicious. When confronted by agents, Calhoun first claimed to be carrying about $1000, then he claimed that he was carrying 36 No. 02-2899 $1700 dollars. Cf. $67,220, 957 F.2d at 286 (finding probative the fact that claimant “twice understated the amount of money he was carrying”). He appeared increasingly nervous and evasive during his conversation with the DEA agents. He finally admitted to be carrying an additional $29,000, which the agents verified when they discovered the bundles of cash stuffed into a girdle that Calhoun wore underneath his clothes. Cf. $42,500, 283 F.3d at 981 (concluding that, coupled with other factors, “[p]ossession of a large amount of cash is strong evidence that the money was furnished or intended to be furnished in return for drugs”) (internal quotations and citation omitted). Calhoun denied ownership of the cash, alleging that it belonged to a friend (whom he refused to name), and he signed a form disclaimer. Cf. $141,770, 157 F.3d at 604 (finding that “initial denial of ownership over the money” cut against innocent explanation). Calhoun provided no receipts or other proof regarding the origins of the cash. Finally, Calhoun’s explanations regarding the sources of his cash did not add up. As explained at length above, an exhaustive accounting of Calhoun’s income and expenditures (reflected largely in Calhoun’s income tax filings and admissions) revealed that Calhoun’s expenditures exceeded his stated income by over $25,000. Calhoun offered no documentation or other proof to account for this wide discrepancy; similar circumstances have supported forfeiture in other cases. See, e.g., $174,206, 320 F.3d at 662 (fact that claimants’ “legitimate income was insufficient to explain the large amount of currency found in their possession” supported forfeiture); $141,770, 157 F.3d at 604 (“[The claimant’s] statement that this money constituted legitimate business proceeds is undercut . . . by his inability to produce any tax records regarding the source of this income. . . .”). Calhoun attempts to characterize this array of factors as nothing more than a series of unrelated factoids adding up to a “drug courier profile” that is not to be accorded eviNo. 02-2899 37 dentiary weight. See United States v. $84,000 U.S. Currency, 717 F.2d 1090, 1099 n.10 (7th Cir. 1983). He further argues that, to the extent any of these factors fall outside the drug courier profile evidence, at most “it shows that Calhoun may have engaged in some unlawful activity,” but not necessarily activity involving illegal narcotics. Calhoun also highlights certain facts in an effort to show that his cash was not linked to illegal narcotics activity. For example, Calhoun notes that he always traveled under his own name, whereas drug couriers tend to travel incognito. See $67,200, 957 F.2d at 285. Calhoun also makes much of the fact that he was never charged or convicted of a drug offense following the seizure of his cash. These facts, Calhoun claims, show that his cash should not be subject to forfeiture. Again we must disagree with Calhoun’s contentions. It is true, as Calhoun argues, that many of these factors, taken alone, would not be enough to carry the government’s burden for forfeiture, particularly under CAFRA’s heightened standard. We decline, however, to implement Calhoun’s divide-and-conquer approach with respect to the factors present in this case. Instead, we consider the totality of the evidence as a whole and in the appropriate context. See $42,500, 283 F.3d at 981 (finding that although some factors taken alone may be innocent, “the aggregate of facts raise more than a mere suspicion of a connection between the seized money and drugs”); see also $242,484, 389 F.3d at 1160 (“In evaluating the evidence of proceeds traceable to drug transactions, we . . . eschew[ ] clinical detachment and endorse[ ] a common sense view to the realities of normal life applied to the totality of the circumstances.”) (internal quotation marks, brackets, and citation omitted); $36,634, 103 F.3d at 1054 (“Even where no particular circumstance is conclusive, it is the aggregate of the facts that is examined.”) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). Taken together with Bax’s positive alert, the multitude of factors in the aggregate sufficiently establish a substantial 38 No. 02-2899 connection between the cash hoard and illegal narcotics activity. Calhoun’s “exculpatory” facts do not convince us otherwise. Bax’s alert outweighs any suggestion that the cash may have been linked to non-drug-related illegal activity. The fact that Calhoun traveled under his own name and was not subsequently charged in a criminal indictment is of little consequence, especially when stacked up against all of the other factors in this case. See, e.g.,$10,700, 258 F.3d at 224 n.6 (“[F]orfeiture under § 881(a) is not conditioned upon an arrest or conviction for a drug offense.”). Furthermore, we are unswayed by Calhoun’s efforts to distinguish or deem inapposite forfeiture caselaw decided before the enactment of CAFRA. Those cases, of course, applied the less-rigorous probable cause standard—a lighter burden for the government to carry in civil forfeiture cases. See United States v. $87,118.00 in U.S. Currency, 95 F.3d 511, 518 (7th Cir. 1996) (describing pre-CAFRA forfeiture standard); accord $174,206, 320 F.3d at 661-62 (comparing pre- and post-CAFRA burdens). But the cases are not inapposite merely because they were decided pre-CAFRA. The government’s burden may have increased in the wake of CAFRA, but it did not become insurmountable. Factors that weighed in favor of forfeiture in the past continue to do so now—with the obvious caveat that the government must show more or stronger evidence establishing a link between forfeited property and illegal activity. We have considered all relevant caselaw while remaining cognizant of the increased quantum of proof necessary to support forfeiture in post-CAFRA cases like this one. Cf. $174,206, 320 F.3d at 662 (concluding that the government met its burden under either pre- or post-CAFRA standards). That quantum is present here. We conclude that the government has carried its burden of showing by a preponderance of the evidence that Calhoun’s cash hoard is subject to forfeiture. Bax’s positive alert to Calhoun’s cash is strong probative evidence of illegal narcotics activity. That alert, No. 02-2899 39 coupled with the totality of other circumstances present in this case, indicates a substantial connection between Calhoun’s cash and illegal narcotics activity. The government therefore is entitled to summary judgment.