OH12: Where there is PC for automobile exception, drug dog’s failure to alert doesn’t mean no PC

When there is probable cause to search a car, a drug dog’s failure to alert is not proof there is no probable cause. In addition, to be safe, the officers got a warrant and told the magistrate the dog didn’t alert. State v. Raphael, 2015-Ohio-3179, 2015 Ohio App. LEXIS 3096 (12th Dist. August 10, 2015):

As noted by the Second District,”[w]hen a drug dog fails to alert, it simply means that he cannot smell the drugs, not that they are not present.” State v. Clark, 2d Dist. Montgomery No. 18314, 2000 Ohio App. LEXIS 5110, 2000 WL 1643789, *7 (Nov. 3, 2000). The failure to alert did not negate the other facts that contributed to the deputies’ suspicion that the Pacifica contained drugs. Instead, the failure to alert is simply another factor to consider in analyzing the existence of the requisite suspicion. See State v. Alexander, 151 Ohio App.3d 590, 2003-Ohio-760, ¶ 56, 784 N.E.2d 1225 (8th Dist.); United States v. Jodoin, 672 F.2d 232, 236 (1st Cir.1982). Moreover, we note the search warrant included the information that the canine failed to alert to the presence of drugs in the Pacifica, yet probable cause was still found to support the issuance of the warrant.