Dog Sniff Evidence in Civil Asset Forfeiture Cases

Courts are wary of the persuasiveness of dog sniff evidence in light of a concern that much of the currency in circulation contains sufficient quantities of narcotics to prompt an alert.

In United States v. $506,231 in U.S. Currency, 125 F.3d 442, 453 (7th Cir. 1997), the court found that the “probative value of dog sniffs is, at most, minimal.”

The courts have taken the view that “a properly trained dog’s alert to currency should be entitled to probative weight.” $30,670, 403 F.3d at 459. In that case, the court concluded that a positive dog sniff was “strong probative evidence of illegal narcotics activity.” Id. at 470.

The court reached that conclusion after consulting scientific research indicating “that circulated currency, innocently contaminated with [microgram] quantities of cocaine would not cause a properly trained detection canine to signal an alert even if very large numbers of bills are present.” Id. at 459.

The court explained that other cases, including $506,231, elied on an “uncritical adoption of the currency contamination theory.” 403 F.3d at 459.

For this reason, dog sniff evidence might provide some minimal evidence to help the Government satisfying its initial pleading burden.