Court Opinion

ID: 9718432
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 07:23:37.54903+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:23:59.206764
License: Public Domain

Neff, P.J.
(concurring). I fully concur in the reasoning and result of the opinion per curiam. However, I write separately to address the issue, not directly raised, but tacitly implicated, i.e., the evidentiary value of narcotics dog alerts on money.
The fact that money is contaminated by drugs does not prove a connection between the person possessing the money and illegal drugs. An accumulating body of evidence exists that much, if not most, of this country’s currency has been contaminated by cocaine. Cases in other jurisdictions cite several studies indicating that anywhere from one-third to ninety-seven percent of the circulating currency has been tainted by cocaine. Many of those cases were cited in United States v $5,000 in US Currency, 40 F3d 846 (CA 6, 1994). In that opinion, the federal Court of Appeals stated that it found, with regard to contaminated money, “the evidentiary value of the narcotics dogs alert to be minimal.” Id. at 849. The court then offered this analysis:
Why the nation’s currency is so thoroughly corrupted has been a topic of inquiry. It has been estimated that one out of every three circulating bills has been involved in a cocaine transaction. Cocaine attaches — in a variety of ways — to the bills, which in turn contaminate others as they pass through cash registers, cash drawers, and counting machines at banks and commercial establishments. Dr. Woodford [the defendant’s expert] testified that, as a result, *454bills may contain as little as a millionth of a gram of cocaine, but that is many times more cocaine than is needed for a dog to alert. [Id. at 849-850. Citations omitted.]
Accordingly, I would find an additional basis for our decision in this case. That is, any significance of dog sniff alerts on money is de minimus and of no evidentiary value.