ID: Officer’s subjective belief drug dog alerted can be sufficient for PC

The officer’s subjective belief the drug dog alerted can be sufficient for probable cause. Here, it’s based on the officer’s training and experience. State v. Morgan, 2025 Ida. App. LEXIS 6 (Feb. 12, 2025):

Morgan next claims that an officer’s subjective belief that a drug dog has identified the presence of a controlled substance in a vehicle is insufficient for the court to determine probable cause existed in a case where the drug dog has not made a final indication. Morgan contends that this Court should hold that a subjective belief that the drug dog has exhibited such behaviors should never be sufficient to establish probable cause, even if a final indication is not required. Otherwise, Morgan argues, the only way to counter such subjective belief would be to catalogue all drug dogs and their pre-indication behaviors to compare whether the dog acted accordingly in the instant matter. Without such objective evidence, Morgan argues, the court will not have an independent and unbiased source of evidence of what the dog did on other occasions that was sufficient to establish probable cause.

An officer’s testimony that a dog’s behavior demonstrates detection of controlled substances prior to a final indication is no different in character or more subjective than the officer’s testimony as to what behavior constitutes a final indication or what it means. In Ricks, this Court concluded that “a dog’s signaling behavior of a general alert–such as the dog’s breathing, posture, body movements, and verbal responses–can constitute probable cause.” Ricks, 173 Idaho at 79, 539 P.3d at 195. We further concluded that the deputy’s “testimony about the dog’s signaling behavior provided objective evidence of the dog’s general alert to the presence of the odor of drugs emanating from the vehicle before the dog entered the vehicle and supports a probable cause finding.” Id. at 80, 539 P.3d at 196. Morgan’s claim that the officer’s “subjective” belief is inappropriate or inadequate is without merit. The officer’s testimony as to the drug dog’s characteristics, behaviors, and their meaning, based on training and experience is appropriately considered by the court in making the probable cause determination.