CURRENCY SNIFFS:

Summary:

There is debate among the courts that a positive canine alert to currency may not be probable cause due to wide spread contamination of money with drug residue.

The dog sniff must be coupled with other supporting factors, such as potential indicators of drug trafficking or use, etc.

Currency sniffs are the only area where a positive canine alert is not probable cause, it is a reasonable suspicion factor or “strong evidence.”

Narcotic detector dogs alert to odor, not residue.

Currency in circulation does not contain enough odor for a narcotic detector dog to alert to.

Only currency tainted with the odor of controlled substances in a requisite level of contamination will trigger a positive canine alert.

A) United States v $215,300 U.S. Currency (882 F. 2d 417 (1989) Ninth Circuit

In a civil forfeiture action, there was probable cause to believe $215,300 of an airline passenger was involved in narcotics trafficking, due to these indicators:
• carrying large sum of cash;
• canine alert for presence of narcotics on the currency;
• passenger’s attempts to avoid detection;
• passenger’s ticket was issued by travel agency known to have issued tickets for other travelers who had narcotics related currency;
• passenger’s nervousness;
• and passenger was bound for well-known center of illegal drug activity.

B) United States v $91,960 U.S. Currency (897 F. 2d 1457 (1990) Eighth Circuit

In a civil forfeiture action, there was probable cause to believe $91,960 of an airline passenger was involved in narcotics, based upon these factors:
• large amount of money in a briefcase, beneath torn phonebook pages;
• a notebook appearing to record drug transactions;
• the suspect provided inconsistent explanation as to presence of money, purchase of case, and his arrest record;
• dog sniff test indicated briefcase had been near narcotics;
• suspect was convicted of distribution of marijuana recently.

C) United States v $639,558 in U.S. Currency (955 F. 2d 712 (1992) District of Columbia Circuit

A narcotics dog alerted to suitcases on a train. Inside was $639,558. During a civil forfeiture action, the court ruled that the dog alerted to cocaine adhering to the cash. The defendant’s expert testified that 90% of all cash in the United States contains sufficient quantities of cocaine to alert a trained dog. This expert also testified that bills may contain as little as a millionth of a gram of cocaine, but that is many times more cocaine than is needed for a dog to alert. The handler testified that the number was lower, near 70%.

There is one study indicating that up to 97% of all bills in circulation in the country are contaminated by cocaine, with an average of 7.3 micrograms of cocaine per bill.

D) United States v $67,220 U.S. Currency (957 F. 2d 280 (1992) Sixth Circuit

Probable cause to believe that seized money was connected with illegal drug transaction, for purposes of forfeiture, must be assessed at the time of forfeiture hearing, rather than at time of seizure.

Alleged reaction of drug-sniffing dog to money was probative evidence that the money was involved in drug transactions, for purposes of forfeiture, but the relative strength of the evidence was weak. There was no testimony from the dog handler or anyone else familiar with the performance or reliability of the dog.

E) United States v $53,082 U.S. Currency (985 F. 2d 245 (1993) Sixth Circuit

When agents told the suspects that money in their possession would be tested with a narcotics detector dog, a seizure occurred.

Probable cause is required to justify seizure of items carried on one’s person.

Evidence in this case did not establish probable cause, as the narcotic detector dog’s reaction could not be used, as agents’ original seizure was without reasonable suspicion.

There is some indication that residue from narcotics contaminates as much as 96% of the currency currently in circulation.

F) United States v Baro (15 F. 3d 563 (1994) Sixth Circuit

A warrantless seizure of cash, requiring probable cause, during a consent search of passenger’s luggage in airport, occurred when the officer removed the currency from the luggage to take it for a canine sniff test. This seizure was unconstitutional.

G) United States v Carr (25 F. 3d 1194 (1994) Third Circuit

This evidence was sufficient to support conspiracy to conceal source of proceeds of drug trafficking and money laundering:

• Large money transfers took place;
• No currency transaction reports were filed;
• Drug sniffing canines reacted positively to currency.

Admitting evidence that trained drug sniffing canines reacted positive to currency was not abuse of discretion, despite the fact that between 70% and 97% of all cash in circulation is tainted with sufficient quantity of cocaine to alert trained dog.

This fact was not considered either commonly known or readily determinable through unquestionably reliable sources.

H) United States v $30,060 U.S. Currency (39 F. 3d 1039 (1994) Ninth Circuit

In a civil forfeiture action, there was not probable cause to believe $30,060 of money found in an automobile was involved in narcotics, based upon these factors:

• narcotics dog alerted to the presence of controlled substances on money;
• the money was packaged in $1000 bundles which corresponded to the price of two kilograms of cocaine;
• the suspect gave false accounts of the money’s source;
• the suspect gave false information on his employment record.

The suspect presented evidence that over 75% of the currency in the area was contaminated with the residue of cocaine and the government presented no other evidence connecting the money to drugs.

I) United States v $5,000 in U.S. Currency (40 F. 3d 846 (1994) Sixth Circuit

In a civil forfeiture action, there was not probable cause to believe money seized from a person at the airport was involved in narcotics, based upon:

• Drug courier description (profile);
• Suspect traveled to New York City for one day;
• Large amounts of currency were found in bundles;
• Narcotic detector dog alerted to money;
• Suspect lied about his trip;
• And suspect had narcotics criminal history.

For purposes of forfeiture of currency, evidentiary value of narcotics dog’s alert to the money was minimal in light of the extent of narcotics contamination of currency in circulation.

A narcotics dog’s alert to currency is not probable cause.

J) United States v Saccoccia (58 F. 3d 754 (1995) First Circuit

Conclusions of a DEA report found that one-third of bills in random sample were contaminated with cocaine.

Evidence presented showed a positive canine sniff on currency, not withstanding claim that its probative value was outweighed by its prejudicial effect due to the widespread contamination of currency; even though widespread contamination of currency lessens impact of dog sniffing evidence, trained dog’s alert still retained some probative value.

K) United States v Golb (69 F. 3d 1417 (1995) Ninth Circuit

Testimony concerning both chemical tests and dog sniffs of cash deposited with money launderers was properly admitted in money laundering prosecution. Dog sniffs had identified cocaine on money deposited in defendant’s account.

L) United States v $39,873 U.S. Currency (80 F. 3d 317 (1996) Eighth Circuit

In a civil forfeiture action, the court held there was probable cause to connect the currency with drug trafficking, based upon:

• consent to search car;
• drug-related paraphernalia, such as duct-tape, dryer sheets, rolling papers and a sky pager;
• a marijuana cigarette in his shoe;
• admitting he was a drug user;
• large amount of money that was carefully concealed.

Even though a dog trained to discover drugs alerted to the money, this was not a factor considered by the court.

M) United States v Muhammed (92 F. 3d 648 (1996) Eighth Circuit

A drug dog alerted to $80,990 in currency located in an airline passenger’s bag. The money was seized by DEA agents.

In an asset seizure action, the court stated that it is well established that an extremely high percentage of cash in circulation in America today is contaminated with drug residue. The fact of contamination, alone, is virtually meaningless and gives no hint of when or how the cash became so contaminated.

The asset seizure was overturned.

N) United States v $36,634 U.S. Currency (103 F. 3d 1048 (1997) First Circuit

In a civil forfeiture action, the court found there was probable cause to support forfeiture of money from alleged drug carrier at airport, based upon:

• traveler’s association with accused drug traffickers;
• extremely large amount of money;
• manner of travel;
• traveler’s nervous and evasive demeanor;
• narcotic detection dog’s “alert” to money, indicating money had come into contact with illegal drugs.

O) United States v $49,576 U.S. Currency (116 F. 3d 425 (1997) Ninth Circuit

In a civil forfeiture action, there was not probable cause to believe money seized from bag at airport was involved in narcotics, based upon these factors:

• defendant’s use of fake driver’s license;
• his evasive and dishonest behavior;
• that drug-sniffing dog alerted to money was entitled little weight in determining whether government had probable cause to believe money was involved in drug transaction, as basis for forfeiture, in light of widespread contamination of money with drug-residue in the community where money was seized.

P) Conrod v Davis (120 F. 3d 92 (1997) Eighth Circuit

A suspect was arrested for a traffic violation. Upon searching the suspect, $10,050 was found.

Officers held the money and subjected it to a canine sniff. The dog alerted to the money. The court ruled this was reasonable due to officer’s knowledge that drug carriers carry large amounts of cash in small denominations and explanation of where the money came from was contradictory.

Transfer of the money to federal drug agency was reasonable.

Q) United States v $506,231 U.S. Currency (125 F. 3d 442 (1997) Seventh Circuit

A trained drug dog identified traces of narcotics on currency. The court held that this was insufficient to establish probable cause for forfeiture.

Even the government admits that no one can place much stock in the results of dog sniffs on currency because at least one-third of the currency in the United States is contaminated with cocaine.

Therefore, the court is unwilling to take seriously the evidence of the post-seizure dog sniff.

R) United States v $141,770 U.S. Currency (157 F. 3d 600 (1998) Eighth Circuit

In a civil forfeiture action, there was probable cause to connect currency to drug trafficking due to:

• dog alerted to seized monies;
• vehicle had come from drug source state;
• vehicle was coming back from a drug destination area with a large amount of cash;
• currency was hidden in ceiling panel and wrapped in scented fabric softener sheets and sealed in three layers of bags.

Testimony of forensic chemist that 99% of United States currency was contaminated with some amount of drug residue, offered to discredit significance of dog’s positive alerts, was:

• unreliable, his “methodology” was not reliable and he had not submitted to peer review any of the test results which formed the basis of his opinion;

• irrelevant, witness was prepared to testify the currency contaminated with traces of illegal drugs detectable by gas chromatograph mass spectrometers, and was not prepared to testify as to level of contamination which must exist before drug-sniffing dog will alert to currency, or as to percentage of United States currency which contains this requisite level of contamination.

S) Resendiz v Miller (203 F. 3d 902 (2000) Fifth Circuit

Drug-sniffing canine alert is sufficient, standing alone, to support probable cause for a search.

The fifth circuit has not yet decided whether a drug dog alert alone is sufficient to constitute probable cause to arrest the person associated with the item (currency) that prompted the alert.

Because other factors supported the probable cause in this case, the court does not reach this question.

T) United States v $22,474 U. S. Currency (246 F. 3d 1212 (2001) Ninth Circuit

In a civil forfeiture action, there was probable cause to connect currency to drug trafficking due to:

• Sophisticated dog sniff indicated presence of narcotics on currency;
• Defendant was carrying large amount of cash;
• He had given conflicting statements regarding amount of cash and its origin;
• He had given conflicting statements about his reasons for visiting city;
• He admitted having prior drug trafficking conviction.

Here the government presented evidence that the dog would not alert to cocaine residue found on circulated currency. Rather, the dog was trained to, and would only alert to the odor of cocaine. Moreover, the government presented evidence that unless the currency had recently been in the proximity of cocaine, the dog would not have alerted to it. That evidence was not disputed.

U) United States v $10,700 U. S. Currency (258 F. 3d 215 (2001) Third Circuit

Three elements must be presented in order to subject a claimant’s property to civil forfeiture:

• The subject property must be monies, negotiable instruments, securities or other things of value;
• There must be probable cause to believe that there exists illicit drug activity that renders the seized property subject to forfeiture;
• There must be probable cause to believe that a connection, or nexus, exists between the seized property and the predicate drug activity the government has identified.

For purpose of civil forfeiture proceeding, a dog’s positive canine alert to traces of cocaine being on currency seized, was not probative of whether money in claimant’s possession could be connected to a drug exchange. The government did not present any evidence concerning dog’s past training and its degree of accuracy in detecting narcotics on currency.

V) United States v Limares (269 F. 3d 794 (2001) Seventh Circuit

Affidavit of officer which stated that trained drug detection dog, which had proven reliable in past, had alerted to presence of drugs in a parcel, established probable cause for issuance of search warrant.

The record of this dog indicated that 62% of dog’s alerts were followed by the discovery of drugs, and that another 31% signaled the presence of currency, many of which likely resulted from currency with unusually high concentrations of drug revenue.

An affidavit for a search warrant based upon a positive canine alert, need not describe training methods or give dog’s scores on final exams. It is enough if a dog is reliable in the field.

W) United States v $42,500 U. S. Currency (283 F. 3d 977 (2002) Ninth Circuit

Government had probable cause to initiate forfeiture proceedings against money seized from traveler’s luggage, based upon:

• Traveler was traveling between well known source cities for drugs;
• Traveler checked locked luggage which did not belong to her and for which she did not have the key;
• Five bundles of currency, wrapped in cellophane, totaling $42,500, were found inside luggage;
• Traveler received bag from and was to deliver bag to unidentified individuals;
• A drug sniffing dog alerted to the money;
• Traveler disclaiming knowing who owned the money.

A large amount of money, standing alone, is insufficient to establish probable cause.

The dog’s handler testified that the dog would not alert to cocaine residue found on currency in general circulation. The dog alerts to odor by-products of narcotics which lasts a short time.

An important factor in determining probable cause is where a dog reacts only to odor by-products, which last a short time and not to commonly circulated currency.

The dog’s alert is afforded greater weight due to the undisputed evidence that the dog had sophisticated training and would not alert to generally circulated currency.

X) United States v Mondragon (313 F. 3d 862 (2002) Fourth Circuit

In a civil forfeiture action, there was probable cause to connect currency to drug trafficking, due to:
• The large sum of currency ($500,000);
• Currency was in unusual packaging, sealed in fifteen plastic bags;
• The professionally constructed hidden compartment in a car where the money was stored;
• Officer knew that such hidden compartments were routinely used by drug traffickers;
• A drug dog alerted in the area of the car near the hidden compartment.

Y) United States v Johnson (323 F. 3d 566 (2003) Seventh Circuit

In determining whether search of defendant’s vehicle was justified by probable cause, district court could not disregard alert by drug dog on grounds the dog’s handler did not testify at suppression hearing, when another officer, who observed the alert from a distance, did testify. The handler was not the only officer capable of interpreting the behavior of the dog, which was an aggressive alert, as alerting to the presence of drugs or drug infested currency.

Z) United States v $84,615 (379 F. 3d 496 (2004) U.S. Court of Appeals Eighth Circuit

In civil forfeiture proceeding, evidence was sufficient to establish a substantial connection between claimant’s currency and drug trafficking, due to:

• A large amount of cash, nearly $85,000, was discovered in claimant’s vehicle;
• Claimant undisputedly possessed illegal drugs at the time the money was discovered;
• Drug-dog alerted to the currency;
• The money was being transported in vacuum-sealed bags.

AA) United States v $242,484 U.S. Currency (389 F. 3d 1149 (2004) Eleventh Circuit

In a civil forfeiture action, there was probable cause to connect currency to drug trafficking, due to:

• Much of the money was in small denominations;
• The money was in rubber banded bundles wrapped in cellophane-type material;
• The airplane passenger’s travel pattern fit drug courier profile;
• Passenger did not know source of money;
• Passenger told conflicting stories about purpose of her trip;
• Drug sniffing dog alerted to package containing money.

The drug dog did not alert to the scent of untainted currency, but only to the scents of one of the four drugs he was trained to identify. The dog alerted to the backpack, indicating positive response to the presence of a controlled substance in the bag.

BB) United States v $30,670 (403 F. 3d 448 (2005) Seventh Circuit

Drug dog was a reliable detector dog at the time of his alert to airline passenger’s cash, although dog had a handful of false positives over the years, the dog in general had a high rate of success, specifically, drugs or currency were found after 97.6 percent of his alerts (2.4 percent false response rate), and drugs were found after 70.1 percent of his alerts.

The drug dog sniff methodology was not defective, agents, outside the presence of the canine handler and dog, put passenger’s money into a plastic bag and placed the bag into one of the many empty suitcases in the DEA office. The canine officer then commanded the dog to search, and the dog sniffed around the room before alerting to the suitcase, the agents removed the plastic bag containing the money from the suitcase and the dog continued to alert to the bag, not the suitcase.

Totality of circumstances supported the forfeiture of $30,670 found on airline passenger at the airport, due to these factors:

• Drug dog alerted to passenger’s cash;
• Passenger was traveling to a recognized source city (Phoenix) for
illegal narcotics;
• Passenger had made frequent trips to Phoenix within two months;
• Passenger always paid cash for one-way airplane tickets;
• Passenger twice understated the amount of money he was carrying;
• Passenger was nervous and evasive at airport;
• An accounting of passenger’s income and expenditures revealed
that his expenditures exceeded his stated income over $25,000.

CC) United States v $117,920 (413 F. 3d 826 (2005) U.S. Court of Appeals Eighth Circuit

Evidence was sufficient to establish substantial connection between $117,920 in cash found in defendant’s car and drug trafficking, supporting civil forfeiture judgment, where:

• Cash was found bundled in rubber bands;
• Cash was enclosed with a plastic sack;
• Cash was hidden beneath clothing in a duffle bag;
• Defendant lied to the investigating officer about not having a large amount of currency;
• Defendant’s car also contained materials used to package drugs;
• Drug dog alerted to the currency;
• Bags found in the car smelled of marijuana.

DD) United States v $124,700 (458 F. 3d 822 (2006) Eighth Circuit

Substantial connection existed between drug trafficking offense and $124,700 found in vehicle during traffic stop, as required for forfeiture, where:

• Currency was concealed in aluminum foil inside cooler;
• Canine alerted to currency;
• Driver had flown on one-way ticket and gave vague explanation as to why he elected to return by car;
• Car was leased to another person who was not present;
• Driver lied about having money in car;
• Driver stated he carried cash to buy refrigerated truck for produce business and he was unable to identify key party in such transaction.

EE) United States v Cuellar (478 F. 3d 282 (2007) U.S. Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit

In prosecution of alleged drug courier for international money laundering based upon his attempted transportation across the Mexican border of alleged drug proceeds, government adequately established “concealment” prong of alleged offense:

• Drug dog alerted to under the floorboard of the car which courier was driving;
• $83,000 in U.S. currency was located there;
• The funds were bundled in plastic bags in attempt to conceal the smell of marijuana emanating there from;
• Animal hair was spread around vehicle in apparent attempt to distract drug dogs and to prevent them from alerting to funds;
• The use of defendant as third-party transporter of funds was intended to effectuate concealment of actual source and ownership of money.

FF) United States v $252,300 (484 F. 3d 1271 (2007) U.S. Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit

The court concluded that the $252,300 in U.S. currency was substantially connected to illegal drug trafficking. Accordingly, the court properly ordered the currency forfeited to the government due to:

• The suspect’s nervousness;
• His inconsistent statements;
• The concealment of the currency;
• Traveling on a known drug route;
• Currency amount and wrapping;
• Lack of evidentiary support for source claims;
• Odor of marijuana on the currency;
• A drug dog alerted to the currency.

GG) Suggested canine sniff of currency:

If contamination is heavy, step 4 may not be possible or practical.

One forensic chemist that can assist you in this area is:

Prof. Kenneth G. Furton, Ph.D.
Chair, Department of Chemistry and Director, IFRI
Florida International University
Miami, Florida
(305) 348-2292

Example Affidavit of Prof. Furton:

1. I am an expert in the field of Analytical Chemistry and Forensic Science. My education, training, experience and publications are outlined in my Curriculum Vitae as provided to the Assistant United States Attorney.

2. It is my expert opinion that a positive alert to U.S. currency by a properly trained narcotics detection canine indicates that the currency had recently, or just prior to packaging, been in close or actual proximity to a significant amount of narcotics, and is not the result of any alleged innocent environmental contamination of circulated U.S. currency by microscopic traces of cocaine.

3. My expert opinion is not affected by the alleged theory that the majority of circulated U.S. currency is innocently contaminated with microscopic amounts of cocaine, as my research has shown to a reasonable scientific certainty that a narcotics detection dog alerts to the odor of methyl benzoate as the dominant odor of illicit cocaine, and not to pure cocaine itself.

4. The dominant cocaine odor chemical, methyl benzoate, is a highly volatile substance associated with the manufacture of illicit cocaine and evaporates quickly when handled and/or exposed to air, while pure cocaine hydrochloride has almost no gaseous odor and is transferred rather easily by physical contact. The very processes, which result in the contamination of currency by cocaine (including the handling and mechanical counting of currency), tend to dissipate the cocaine odor chemical, methyl benzoate.

5. Additionally, cocaine is a local anesthetic and as such blocks the transmission of nerve impulses. Therefore cocaine should block the transmission of olfactory (smell) nerve fibers resulting in non-detection.

6. It is also my expert opinion that the methyl benzoate found in some perfumes is so minute as compared to the many other gaseous substances contained in perfume that a narcotics detection dog trained to alert to cocaine would not alert to perfume.

7. My research has included studies with over 29 different narcotics detection canines in over 120 individual tests and their abilities to detect the odor of cocaine. Much of these studies are detailed in the three published papers listed below, etc.

8. I am also aware of numerous non-alerts by trained narcotics canines to large amounts of circulated U.S. currency, a fact which supports my theories and is inconsistent with the theory that all U.S. currency is contaminated with so much cocaine that narcotics detection canines will always alert to money.

9. Based on my training and experience in the field of analytical chemistry and forensic science; the research I have conducted with narcotic detection canine teams; my review of the literature and the facts of this case, it is my opinion that the narcotics detection dog in this case, ____, handled by Officer ______, acted consistently with his training and that the positive alert indicates that the defendant currency in this case had recently, or just before packaging been in close or actual proximity to a significant amount of narcotics.

Return to the Narcotics Legal Index

Return to the Home Page

Created and maintained by Terry Fleck. Contact: k9fleck@aol.com
Copyright © 1999 - 2009 Terry Fleck. All rights reserved.

Webmaster