The War on Cash by David McRee

Author:David McRee
Language: eng
Format: epub, pdf
Tags: BUS045000 Business & Economics / Money & Monetary Policy
Publisher: Humanix Books

CHAPTER 12

The Four-Legged Search Warrant

DESPITE THE WIDESPREAD CONTAMINATION of cash with drug residue, detection dogs are still used. Though a positive alert by a dog is not supposed to be enough to provide probable cause for an arrest, it is very effective in neutralizing the Fourth Amendment prohibition of unreasonable searches.

For an enlightening discussion of dog vs. cash we turn to a 1994 case heard by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit: United States v. $30,060 US Currency and Albert Joseph Alexander.12.1 It seems that Mr. Alexander was stopped by the Los Angeles County Sherriff’s Department for running a stop sign. During the stop the deputy noticed a bag on the front seat containing about $30,000 in cash, in neat bundles of $1,000. As usual, a dog alerted to the smell of drugs, and even though no drugs were found in the car, the cash was confiscated on suspicion of being used in the drug trade.

Alexander was not arrested, nor was he charged with a crime. There was no evidence that he committed a crime, and the question before the court was not whether Alexander committed a crime. The question before the court was whether the cash was connected to drugs. To confiscate the cash, the government must demonstrate that there was probable cause to do so. The judge cited a prior case where the court articulated that probable cause is based on “the aggregate of facts” and “simply involves the question whether the information relied on by the government is adequate and sufficiently reliable to warrant the belief by a reasonable person that the [money] was connected to drugs.” Citing another case, the judge wrote: “To pass the point of mere suspicion and to reach probable cause, it is necessary to demonstrate by some credible evidence the probability that the money was in fact connected to drugs.”

“Some credible evidence.”

Does a trained dog’s alert amount to credible evidence that the money was connected to drugs? Considering that most currency has drug residue on it, it would not seem so.

The judge observed that in the past, his court had indeed ruled that an alert by a trained dog was “strong evidence” when making a probable cause determination, but he then added that “In recent years . . . subsequent courts, including our own, have questioned the probative value of positive dog alerts due to the contamination of America’s paper money supply with narcotics residue.”

The judge then cited numerous cases that refused to rely solely on the dog’s nose to demonstrate probable cause. The judge devoted several paragraphs showing that a dog can find drug residue on almost anyone’s money, citing authoritative study after study over a period of years, finally concluding with this:

“Undoubtedly, a positive dog alert is probative in showing that the currency has been in contact with a narcotics substance or contaminated currency at some ‘prior’ point in time. Dickerson, 873 F.2d at 1184. The mere fact of prior contamination does not establish, however, that

Download

Copyright Disclaimer:
This site does not store any files on its server. We only index and link to content provided by other sites. Please contact the content providers to delete copyright contents if any and email us, we'll remove relevant links or contents immediately.