Cabelles’ well-trained dog?

How does government show the proverbial well-trained dog under Caballes? An uncontradicted affidavit is enough. Perfection is not required. United States v. High Wolf, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 62190 (D. S.D. August 11, 2008):

First, where High Wolf’s vehicle was properly stopped for a traffic violation, the use of Officer Waln’s dog to sniff around the exterior of the car for contraband could occur, even in the absence of any suspicion of drug activity. Illinois v. Caballes, 543 U.S. 405, 409-10 (2005) (relying on United States v. Place, 462 U.S. 696, 707 (1983)). The court in Caballes permitted the use of a drug dog under such circumstances because it did not “expose non-contraband items that otherwise would remain hidden from public view.” Caballes, 543 U.S. at 409. Similarly, the use of Jansen to sniff around High Wolf’s vehicle did not reveal information other than the location of a substance that High Wolf lacked any right to possess. See id. at 410. Accordingly, Magistrate Judge Moreno properly found that the sniff did not amount to a Fourth Amendment intrusion.

If a drug dog is reliable, its positive indication alone establishes probable cause for the presence of a controlled substance. United States v. Sundby, 186 F.3d 873, 875 (8th Cir. 1999). An affidavit stating that the dog has been trained and certified to detect drugs sufficiently establishes a dog’s reliability. Id. at 876 (citing United States v. Kennedy, 131 F.3d 1371, 1377 (10th Cir. 1997)). In Sundby, the court found that even though no information was offered about continued training, continued certification, reliability, or error rates for the drug dog, the dog was nonetheless reliable, because the affidavit only needed to state that the dog was trained and certified to detect narcotics. Id. at 874-76. Here, to an extent even greater than in Sundby, the government offered evidence demonstrating the reliability of Officer Waln’s drug dog. At the suppression hearing, Magistrate Judge Moreno considered evidence that on July 14, 2006, Jansen successfully completed training and was certified for narcotics detection, as well as being re-certified on March 19-21, 2007. Hrg. Tr. 39-43. He also considered Jansen’s “real life” performance data for the seven-week time period prior to the April 23, 2007, stop of High Wolf, which showed the dog’s accuracy rate as exceeding 90 percent. R&R Tr. at 5. Finally, Magistrate Judge Moreno considered the disparity in Jansen’s performance between the periods of July 2006 until April 2007 (54 percent accurate), and May 2007 until December 2007 (97.5 percent accurate), finding Officer Waln’s explanation for the difference logical and credible. Id. Jansen was a competent, qualified, and reliable drug indicator at the time of High Wolf’s stop. Thus, the court adopts Magistrate Judge Moreno’s findings regarding Jansen’s reliability and the search of High Wolf’s vehicle.