Cal.3: Dog alert on a backpack that showed parts of a methamphetamine lab but no drugs did not show the dog to be unreliable

Just because a drug dog alerted on a backpack too, where no drugs were found, is not an indication that the dog was unreliable. Parts of a meth lab were found in the backpack. Then a search warrant was obtained for defendant’s house. People v. Stillwell, 197 Cal. App. 4th 996, 129 Cal. Rptr. 3d 233 (3d Dist. 2011):

More importantly, even if it were shown no cocaine, methamphetamine, marijuana, or heroin was found in the backpack in this case, substantial evidence would still exist to find Tommy reliable. Defendants offer no California authority for the proposition that evidence of a single error by an otherwise well-trained detection dog makes that dog unreliable. Instead, defendants rely on a single Florida case to support the notion that the People must present evidence of a dog’s success rate to prove reliability. In that case, the court held that the state could not make a prima facie showing of probable cause based solely on testimony as to the training and certification of a narcotics detection dog. (Matheson v. State (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2003) 870 So.2d 8, 14–15.) California cases, however, have not required evidence of a dog’s success rate to establish probable cause. (See Estes v. Rowland (1993) 14 Cal.App.4th 508, 529 [17 Cal. Rptr. 2d 901]; People v. Salih (1985) 173 Cal.App.3d 1009, 1015 [219 Cal. Rptr. 603]; People v. Bautista (2004) 115 Cal.App.4th 229, 236–237 [8 Cal. Rptr. 3d 862].) The appellate court’s discussion in People v. Bautista, supra, 115 Cal.App.4th at page 229 is illustrative. In that case, the court found an agent’s knowledge of a pair of detection dogs’ training and experience and observation of the dogs’ trained behavior gave probable cause for the issuance of a warrant. (Id. at pp. 236–237.)