Opinion ID: 3063240
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Reliability of Narcotics Detection Dog

Text: 4 Anderson also contends that the officers who searched his vehicle lacked probable cause to search for narcotics because the canine Aron was trained to detect the odor of narcotics, not the presence of narcotics. Anderson argues that because the dog was trained to detect the odor of drugs, which may or may not be present, there is no reliable way of knowing whether contraband is actually present. Specifically, he asserts that in 44.9% of the searches conducted by Deputy Gazdick and Aron, an alert resulted in no discovery of measurable amounts of contraband. He maintains that the mere fact of training and certification, combined with an alert, is insufficient to support probable cause. The Fourth Amendment requires that to search a car without a warrant, a law enforcement officer must have probable cause to believe it contains contraband. Pennsylvania v. Labron, 518 U.S. 938, 940, 116 S. Ct. 2485, 2487 (1996) (citation omitted) (per curiam). In the case of narcotics dogs, “[o]ur circuit has recognized that probable cause arises when a drug-trained canine alerts to drugs.” United States v. Banks, 3 F.3d 399, 402 (11th Cir. 1993) (per curiam); see also United States v. Tamari, 454 F.3d 1259, 1265 (11th Cir. 2006). Although Anderson is correct in noting that there have been other facts establishing probable cause in our canine alert cases, we have stated that a canine’s “positive alert was itself sufficient to give agents probable cause to search the [vehicle].” Tamari, 454 F.3d at 1265. Similarly, in United 5 States v. Steed, we applied Tamari and held that a canine’s positive alert outside a trailer gave officers probable cause to search the trailer. 548 F.3d 961, 975 (11th Cir. 2008) (per curiam) (citing Tamari, 454 F.3d at 1264–65). While a dog sniff must be sufficiently reliable in order to establish probable cause, we have held in dicta “that training of a dog alone is sufficient proof of reliability.” United States v. Sentovich, 677 F.2d 834, 838 n.8 (11th Cir. 1982) (citation omitted) (endorsing the view of the Tenth and First Circuits that training of a dog alone is sufficient proof of reliability); see also United States v. Robinson, 390 F.3d 853, 874 (6th Cir. 2004) (citation omitted) (holding that once certification is established, all other evidence goes to credibility); United States v. Williams, 69 F.3d 27, 28 (5th Cir. 1995) (per curiam) (holding that a dog’s past performance is not required for a finding of reliability). But see Matheson v. State, 870 So. 2d 8, 14 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003) (citation omitted) (holding that training and certification is insufficient to establish reliability, and that other factors, such as the dog’s “track record,” must be considered). In another decision, we described a dog as a “highly trained and credentialed professional whose integrity and objectivity are beyond reproach,” because it had graduated from the U.S. Canine Academy and Police Dog Training Center, had been certified by the National Narcotics Detector Dog Association, and was 6 described by one trainer as “probably one of the best dogs he had trained in the 23 years he had been doing it.” United States v. $242,484.00, 389 F.3d 1149, 1159, 1165 (11th Cir. 2004). There was extensive evidence concerning Aron’s certification and training with Deputy Gazdick. In addition to this evidence, the government also provided proof of Aron’s reliability by offering his field records into evidence. Even assuming Anderson’s view of the statistics, Aron had a 55% accuracy rate in finding measurable amounts of drugs. “Absolute certainty is not required by the Fourth Amendment.” United States v. Johnson, 660 F.2d 21, 23 (2d Cir. 1981) (per curiam) (holding that appellant’s arguments regarding dog’s detection of odor of drugs, rather than their presence, misconstrued the probable cause requirement). Probable cause requires “a fair probability that contraband or evidence of a crime will be found.” Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213, 238, 103 S. Ct. 2317, 2332 (1983) (emphasis added). Here, the district court did not err in determining that the narcotics detection dog’s alert was reliable and gave rise to probable cause to search Anderson’s vehicle. Accordingly, the district court did not err in denying Anderson’s motion to suppress based on the canine’s alert. AFFIRMED. 7