Opinion ID: 780449
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Canine Identification

Text: 14 This Circuit has yet to rule on the extent to which canine identification of an individual may serve as probable cause for an arrest. However, our cases on the use of canines in drug enforcement provide some guidance. For several decades, we have recognized the importance of canine noses to assist in narcotics investigations. See United States v. Solis, 536 F.2d 880, 882 (9th Cir.1976) (The recent proliferation of crimes involving the transportation of drugs and explosives has led naturally to the training and use of dogs ... to detect the presence of such contraband.). Indeed, we have routinely held that a canine identification or `alert' of illegal narcotics provides probable cause for the issuance of a search warrant, so long as the dog's reliability is established. See United States v. Lingenfelter, 997 F.2d 632, 639 (9th Cir.1993); see also United States v. Spetz, 721 F.2d 1457, 1464 (9th Cir.1983) (overruled on other grounds) (A validly conducted dog sniff can supply the probable cause necessary for issuing a search warrant only if sufficient reliability is established by the application for the warrant.); United States v. $22,474, 246 F.3d 1212, 1216-17 (9th Cir.2001) (positive alert by police dog with sophisticated training constituted probable cause for a search when combined with other corroborating evidence). 15 We are not alone in placing a heightened reliability standard on canine identifications in narcotics investigations — other circuits have approached this area with an equally guarded stance. See, e.g., United States v. Ludwig, 10 F.3d 1523, 1527 (10th Cir.1993) (a dog alert usually is at least as reliable [for the presence of drugs] as many other sources of probable cause unless the particular dog had a poor accuracy record); United States v. Diaz, 25 F.3d 392, 394 (6th Cir.1994) (For a positive dog reaction to support a determination of probable cause, the training and reliability of the dog must be established.). Whether a reliable canine identification outside of the drug context provides probable cause for an arrest is an issue we need not decide today. The parties presented enough evidence at trial to call into question the threshold element of Tinkerbelle's reliability. 16 Here, Tinkerbelle led police officers two miles from a crime scene to a twenty-unit apartment building full of people at a time when Grant was not at home. After spending ten minutes on the second floor, Tinkerbelle showed signs of confusion and could not identify any particular apartment or individual. She neither showed interest in Grant's apartment located on the first floor nor any other apartment on that floor. Furthermore, her handler testified that Tinkerbelle was young for a police dog, with only 150 opportunities to track during both training and active duty. Compared to the Lingenfelter dog that had participated in over 500 actual investigations, she was still a novice. The officers did not provide any evidence regarding Tinkerbelle's accuracy rate to bolster her reliability. 17 While we recognize the importance of dogs in police investigations, we also adhere to our requirement of reliability as a safeguard against faulty canine identifications. The facts of this case provide no reason to depart from a showing of the dog's reliability. The jury had good reason to question the reliability of Tinkerbelle's identification.