The failure of the drug dog to alert doesn\u2019t completely undermine probable case, but it is a factor in the totality of circumstances. Here, the government didn\u2019t meet its burden. United States v. Presby, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 172828 (D. Me. Aug. 4, 2026):<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\nFinally, the Court also considers the K-9’s failure to alert within the totality of the circumstances. The Deputy testified that his K-9 was properly trained, qualified, and certified to detect methamphetamine, crack and powder cocaine, and heroin. While a K-9’s failure to alert does not necessarily “destroy the ‘probable cause’ that would otherwise exist,” it does bear on the totality of the circumstances. United States v. Jodoin, 672 F.2d 232, 236 (1st Cir. 1982), abrogated on other grounds by Bloate v. United States, 559 U.S. 196 (2010); see United States v. Simpkins, 978 F.3d 1, 9 (1st Cir. 2020) (“A drug-sniffing dog’s failure to alert is not invariably inimical to the existence of probable cause; instead, it is merely one fact to be weighed when assessing the totality of the circumstances.”). Here, however, the Government has not met its burden of identifying other facts sufficient to connect the van to drug-related criminal activity. Thus, while the K-9’s failure to alert is not dispositive, it further undermines the existence of probable cause.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Under the totality of the circumstances, the facts known to law enforcement never established a fair probability that the van contained contraband or evidence of drug activity. \u2026<\/p>\n\n\n\n
<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
The failure of the drug dog to alert doesn\u2019t completely undermine probable case, but it is a factor in the totality of circumstances. Here, the government didn\u2019t meet its burden. United States v. Presby, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 172828 (D. … Continue reading