Opinion ID: 2997534
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Bax’s Reliability

Text: Calhoun contends that there is no evidence that Bax is a reliable drug detector dog, and thus Bax’s alert to his cash No. 02-2899 21 is entitled to no probative weight. On this issue, however, we are satisfied that the record amply demonstrates Bax’s reliability. Bax is a certified narcotic detector dog, having received his certification in November 1997 upon completion of 400 hours of training with his handler, Officer Arrigo. Bax’s diploma indicates that he was qualified to detect marijuana, cocaine, and heroin; in 1999, Bax underwent recertification at which time he was certified to detect methamphetamine. During the performance of his duties in the years after certification, Bax racked up an impressive record. Drugs or currency were found after 97.6% of his alerts. Drugs were found after 70.1% of his alerts. Only five of Bax’s alerts (the remaining 2.4%) were unambiguous false positives, and none of those took place in the two years prior to the seizure of Calhoun’s cash hoard. These facts are reflected in the record and set forth in the government’s statement of material facts, and Calhoun disputed none of these facts in his opposition to summary judgment. But Calhoun now attacks Bax’s reliability by pointing to evidence that Bax conducted certification training with both actual cocaine and pseudococaine (which consists primarily of methyl benzoate). Furton et al., Novel Methods at 61 (“The active ingredient in . . . pseudococaine is actually methyl benzoate.”). According to Calhoun, “a dog’s training regimen will assure probativeness of future alerts to currency only if pseudococaine/methyl benzoate is the only material used during training.” Calhoun cites to some caselaw for this proposition and contends that Bax was not properly proofed to alert only to methyl benzoate, or somehow lacked adequate training generally. See, e.g., $22,474, 246 F.3d at 1216 (holding that a dog alert to currency was probative because the government offered evidence that “the dog was trained to, and would only, alert to the odor of a chemical by-product of cocaine called methyl benzoate”) (emphasis added); United States v. $10,700 in U.S. Cur22 No. 02-2899 rency, 258 F.3d 215, 230 (3d Cir. 2001) (declining to determine the evidentiary weight to be accorded dog alerts to currency because the government had not presented any evidence concerning the dog’s training or its degree of accuracy in detecting narcotics on currency). Thus, Calhoun argues that Bax’s record “does nothing to show that Bax has been trained to distinguish (or has otherwise shown the ability in practice to distinguish) recently tainted currency from currency in general circulation.” This is a distinction without meaning, however. For the reasons exhaustively set forth above, dogs apparently do not alert to cocaine at all, but rather to methyl benzoate. So it does not matter whether Bax was trained with actual cocaine and pseudococaine, because he was actually trained to detect and alert to the odor of methyl benzoate emanating from the cocaine and pseudococaine, not the odor of cocaine per se—which is impossible to detect in any event, due to its anesthetic qualities. Furton et al., Odor Signature at 331 (“When a dog is trained to alert to . . . drugs, . . . the canine is actually being trained to alert to a scent associated with the item rather than the item itself. . . . This is the basis of commercial training aids developed, such as pseudo cocaine, . . . which[ ] in fact[ ] contain no controlled substances but, rather, only the controlled substance odor.”); (Rose Aff. ¶ 2, Gov’t App. at 22.) And, as discussed, currency in general circulation, even if it is tainted, does not exude enough methyl benzoate to trigger a dog alert (unless the cash is very recently tainted and present in massive quantities) due to the substance’s high rate of evaporation. An alert to currency in most circumstances would indicate that the currency is not innocently tainted, but instead tainted through contact or close proximity to illegal narcotics. Equally unavailing is Calhoun’s suggestion that Bax might alert to general circulation currency itself (the smell of cash) even in the absence of the odor of methyl benzoate. No. 02-2899 23 Bax was certified to detect certain narcotics, not currency— and apparently there are dogs trained for that specific purpose. See Normal Lorenzo et al., Laboratory and Field Experiments Used to Identify Canis Lupus Var. Familiaris Active Odor Signature Chemicals from Drugs, Explosives, and Humans, 376 ANALYTICAL & BIOLANALYTICAL CHEMISTRY 1212, 1213 (2003) (listing various detector dog types). There is no indication in the record (nor does Calhoun offer any meaningful argument) to suggest that Bax alerts to general circulation currency itself or to some other substance or byproduct that may be on currency by virtue of innocent contamination—indeed, extensive research by Dr. Furton and Dr. Rose indicates that trained dogs do not alert to any byproduct of cocaine other than methyl benzoate. See Furton et al., Odor Signature at 331 (“None of the dogs tested alerted to by-products other than methyl benzoate. . . .”); Kenneth G. Furton et al., Identification of Odor Signature Chemicals in Cocaine Using Solid-Phase MicroextractionGas Chromatography and Detector-Dog Response to Isolated Compounds Spiked on U.S. Paper Currency, 40 J. CHROMATIC SCI. 147, 155 (2002) (“Identification”). In addition, as we previously have recognized, there is no need to “proof” a dog off currency when there is ample evidence to illustrate the dog’s reliability in the field. See, e.g., United States v. Limares, 269 F.3d 794, 798 (7th Cir. 2001) (“Whether you can confuse a drug-detection dog depends . . . on how dogs perform in practice, not, as Limares believes, how they were trained and ‘proofed off’ currency.”). Thus, we do not accept Calhoun’s contention that Bax is an “unsophisticated” narcotics detector dog, and Calhoun’s cited caselaw does not convince us otherwise. Calhoun cites $22,474 in support of his view that dogs must be shown to alert only to methyl benzoate as opposed to cocaine itself— a view resting on a faulty premise of which we have already disposed (cocaine per se has no odor). In fact, we read the Ninth Circuit’s reasoning in that case to be consistent with 24 No. 02-2899 the empirical information offered by the government— dogs alert to the odor of methyl benzoate, not to the minute particles of cocaine present on currency in general circulation. Cf. $22,474, 246 F.3d at 1216 (finding dog alert probative because of government evidence that “the dog would not alert to cocaine residue found on currency in general circulation[,]” but rather to methyl benzoate). Likewise, Calhoun’s citation to $10,700 does not carry the day. In that case, the Third Circuit attached no significance to a positive alert to currency because the government failed to present any evidence concerning the dog’s past training or accuracy. $10,700, 258 F.3d at 230. This is quite unlike the situation presented here, in which the government presented uncontroverted evidence demonstrating Bax’s qualifications and reliability in the field. Given these facts, we agree with the district court’s conclusion that Bax was a reliable detector dog at the time of his alert to Calhoun’s cash. Certainly we may assume that Bax is wrong on rare occasion, as evidenced by his handful of false positives over the years. But Bax’s high rate of success (drugs or currency were found after 97.6% of his alerts, and drugs were found after 70.1% of his alerts), coupled with the additional empirical information before us in this case, is more than adequate to indicate his reliability in this case. See Limares, 269 F.3d at 798 (“[E]ven if all alerts to currency are treated as false positives, [drug detection dog] Wendy has been right 62% of the time [as to the presence of drugs], enough to prevail on a preponderance of the evidence. . . .”) (emphasis in original).