Skip navigation
PYHS - Header

K9 Officer's Legal Handbook Drug Detector and Patrol Dog Testimony Ken Wallenstine 2008

Download original document:
Brief thumbnail
This text is machine-read, and may contain errors. Check the original document to verify accuracy.

Chapter 10

• Handlers must be paid for reasonably necessary canine home care.



• Commuting time is generally not compensable time.
• Training time is compensable time, but driving to and from training
is not.
• On-call time is generally not compensable time.

Every veteran officer can tell you about the time that he or she froze
on the witness stand, or was ambushed by an off-the-wall, unexpected
question. Even the most seasoned veteran occasionally is at a loss for
words when testifying. This chapter presents some of the uncommon, as
well as common, questions that a police service dog handler is likely to
face on the witness stand.

§ 10-1.

Prindples of Court Testimony

Much of the trial is controlled by others- the prosecutor, the judge, and
the defense counsel. One matter firmly within the control of the handler
is the first impression that the judge and jury see as the handler walks into
the room. Salespersons and psychologists know that only a small portion,
about seven percent, of any oral communication is transmitted by the words
spoken. Voice intonation accounts for another thirty-five percent. The
largest share, fifty-eight percent, is communicated through body language.
As you walk into the room, show confidence and credibility through open
body language, professional demeanor, a pleasant smile, and eye contact.
Even before you walk into the courtroom, consider that potential jurors
may be waiting in the haJlway or in the lobby of the courthouse. Be
careful about making inappropriate comments that might give a negative
impression that will follow you into the courtroom.
· The handler witness also controls the pace and intonation of his speech.
Remember that we tend to speak more softly than necessary in court.
Jurors must be able to clearly hear testimony in order for the testimony to
have its full impact. It is not likely that a juror will interrupt a witness to
ask the judge to direct the witness to speak up. Talk just a little louder and a little slower - than you normally would speak. Slowing t11e pace just
a little will improve the jurors' comprehension and help them concentrate
on your testimony.
A criminal defense attorney has an ethical duty to zealously represent
his client. That means fighting bard to protect the defendant's rights. It
does not mean fighting unfairly. However, some defense attorneys believe
that confusion in a j uror's mind (it usually only takes one to acquit) is one
of the defendant's best allies. Alan Dershowitz quipped, "the defendant in
a criminal trial wants to hide the truth because he's generally guilty. The
defense attorney's job is to make sure that the jury does not arrive at that
truth." An officer may become an unwitting partner in hiding the truili if
tlle officer is not prepared to answer the tough questions on the witness





. ......

§ 10-1



Winning in court begins with case preparation. Solving a crime is only
the beginning; getting a conviction begins with writing a complete and
acclU1lte incident report. The defense attorney's opening salvo may go
something like this:

examination under oath, but it does not take place in a courtroom before a
judge. The attorneys have the right to ask the handler questions and have
a court reporter record the answers as part of the discovery process. The
deposition is often the only sworn testimony required of the handler; many
cases settle before trial or are dismissed following a motion for summary
judgment. Most use of force liability lawsuits include a claim of "failure
to adequately or properly train." Thus, the handler's training records and
the police service dog's training records are often a key subject area in a

§ W-1

This is an official report?
You completed it right after arresting my client?
You've received training in writing police reports?
You write complete, thorough, and accurate reports?
You put all of the important details of a case into your report?
Can you show me in your report the information that you just testified
But you never mentioned the cat food on the floor of the back seat
that may have affected your dog's sniff, did you?
Any officer who bas been through a cross-examination with questions
like these leaves the courtroom committed to improving his or her report
writing skills.
If you are on the witness stand and remember something that you left
out, admit it. It may help to explain that you put in your report everything
that you thought was important at the time you wrote it. You write reports
to help you remember what happened and to give others a description
of the events, but you don't claim to record every detail. An appellate
court opinion asked rhetoricalJy: "What trial court judge cannot attest
that officers remember facts on the stand that they neglected to put in
their police reports?" People v. Wilson, 182 Cal. App. 3d 742,752 (1986).
Recognize the difference between "I don't know" and "I don' t recalJ." "I
don't know'' signals that you never knew, and obviously cannot remember
it later and correct or supplement you testimony. "I don't recalJ" is an open
door to ask to look at your notes, buy time, and alert the prosecutor that
you may be in trouble. Recover by finding the answer in your report or
notes and confidently telJing it to the jury.

In civil lawsuits, a number of documents and answers to written
interrogatories will usually have been provided to the plaintiff's lawyers.
In lawsuits filed in federal court, as well as most states' courts, the handler
will be deposed before the actual trial. The discovery process, which may
include a deposition, usually precedes civil trial. In some states, depositions
are also part of the criminal case discovery process. A deposition is an

The attorneys participating in a deposition are responsible to "protect
the record." The court reporter will take down everything that is spoken
verbalJy (that can be heard and understood), but cannot record bead nods.
Officers who speak clearly, spell difficult names or uncommon terms
or police jargon, and who speak only after the attorney bas finished the
question will soon gain the appreciation of the court reporter. The court
reporter, in turn, can make the officer's testimony look more professional
as his spoken words are transcribed. Attorneys usually begin depositions
with instructions like the folJowing:
Good morning. I represent the plaintiff in this matter. Your
sworn testimony today will be recorded by a court reporter.
Every question that I ask and every answer that you give will be
taken down verbatim. It is important for you to answer out loud
and not nod your bead like you might in casual conversation.
If you don't understand a question, please tell me. I want to
make sure that the answers that you give are responsive to
the questions that I ask. The court reporter cannot write down
everything that is said if two persons speak at the same time,
so I will wait for you to complete an answer before I ask you
another question. You should also wait for me to finish my
question before you start to answer.
Police service dog handlers tend to be better-than-average court
witnesses. They are usually veterans with a few years on the road. They
often receive advanced search and seizure training and, perhaps, even
advanced training in courtroom presentation. The following are seven
commandments for police service dog handlers in tlte courtroom:
0 Never lie. An officer loses credibility only once. It is tough, if not
impossible, to recover from being caught in a lie given under an oath
to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. The bandit
will be caught again.

8 Never volunteer. Volunteering in the community is good; volunteering
on the witness stand is not. Do not give more infonnation in your

§ 10-2


response than is necessary to directly answer the question asked. Do
not suggest that someone else might know the answers that you don't
know. If you say that "Officer Jones might know that," you have
just lengthened the trial, perhaps unnecessarily, and you have almost
certainly paved the way for Officer Jones to be summoned to court.
Of course, if you are directly asked whether someone else may know
and you are certain that the other person does know the answer to a
question, then respond truthfully.


• What is the breed of your dog?
• How old is your dog?
• How long has your dog been working?
• Are you the dog's only handler?

• Did the dog have a previous handler?
8 Treat all questions like railroad crossings. A national railroad safety
campaign encourages drivers to "stop, listen, and look" at train
crossings. When on the witness stand, listen carefully to the question,
stop or pause for a second or two to allow the jury to switch attention
from the attorney asking the question to you, then look at the jury
and answer the question.
8 Say only what you know. If you do not know the answer to a question,
do not guess or speculate. Do not try to look smarter than the attorney.
It usually backfires.

• Why was this breed selected?
• How and when did your agency acquire this dog?
• Have you handled any other service dogs?
• How many? What type? What profiles?

§ 10-3.

Training Questions

0 Estimate when you don t know. If you are not certain about time
ranges and distances, say so. If necessary, respond with a range with
which you are comfortable. If appropriate, estimate distances by
making reference to visible objects in the courtroom.

• Which organization(s)?

0 Be prepared! Follow the Boy Scout motto.

• What are their functions?

8 Listen to your lawyer. If the lawyer screws up, grin and bear it.
Listen, too, to the defense attorney. Treat the prosecutor and defense
attorney the same in court. The jury will notice your sense of fairness
and count it to your favor. On the same note, be dignified to the
defendant, but call him udefendant'' to remind the jury just who is on

• When did you receive your training as a K9 handler?

• Are you a member of any K9 organizations?

• Where was the training conducted?
• How long was the training?
• Did your training include a manual or written materials?

§ 10-2.

• Do you have them available?

Foundation questions

• How long have you been in the K9 unit?

• What sort of subjects were covered in your handler training?

• How ·many dogs are in the unit?

• Did you receive a certification?

• What are their various functions?

• How long is the certification valid?

• What is your dog trained to do?

• Do you certify your dog through any agency or organization?

• How is a drug/bomb/etc. dog trained?

• How frequently?



§ 11>-3



§ II>-

• Are there criteria for certifying the dog?

• Why not?

• Who administers the certification testing?

• Are distractions included in your dog training? Why?

• Are scores or grades given?

• What type of distractions?

• How well did your dog perform?

• Is your dog's indication a strong indication that someone other thar
you could discern?

• What types of odors is your dog trained to locate?
• How was the dog trained to locate these odors?
• Is an "odor" the same thing as a "scent?"
• How does your dog communicate that he/she has located a drug

• During the course of training, bas your dog ever failed to fine
concealed drugs? Why?
• Is your philosophy of training superior to other agencies? Why don't
you train like LAPD, or ICE, or the Air Force, etc.?
• Isn't it true that you believe that other agencies have inferior training

• How did you build this indication into the dog's behavior?
• Can your dog indicate on command?
• What is the smallest quantity of drugs that you have use to train your

• How do you reward your dog when it makes an indication?

• What is the.largest amount of drugs that you have used to train your

• Have you ever rewarded your dog when it was wrong or performing

• What is the reason for those limitations?

§ 10--4.

Drug Detector Dog Questions

• Have you and your dog received additional training since the initial

• Is an "alert" the same thing as an "indication?"

• How much? Where?

• What is the difference?

• How often do you train with your dog?

• What is a ''final response?"

• Under what conditions?

• Is that the same as an "alert" or an "indication?"

• Is your dog weak in particular areas and strong in others?

• Have you formed an opinion about your dog's reliability in finding
the odors of drugs?

• What are your dog's weaknesses?
• What is the basis for your opinion?
• Is your dog I 00% successful?
• What is your opinion?
• What is the distinction benveen a dog handler and a dog trainer?
• What is the largest amount of drugs that your dog bas ever located?
• Would you be willing to bring your dog to court and demonstrate the
dog's training to the jurors?


§ 10-4


• What is the smallest amount of drugs that your dog has ever



• How many times has your dog failed to find concealed drugs?
• Has your dog ever failed to alert in an area where drugs weJ

• How many times has your dog been used to search for drugs?


• Is your dog worked at any time other than searching for odors of

• How can you explain this?

• For what purpose? How often?

• When your dog indicates, can you tell whether he/she has foun
marijuana, methamphetamine, or some other drug?

• Are there any records kept of your dog's searches and/or training?

• How can you tell?

• Who keeps the records?

• Why don't you teach your dog to alert differently to differen

• How are they kept?
• How sensitive is a dog's nose?
• Where could I inspect the records?
• How many more times sensitive than a human nose?
• Does your dog ever have a bad day?
• What accounts for the difference?
• How does your dog behave on a bad day?

• What is a ''useable" amount of drugs?
• What kind of searches are challenging for your dog?
• Has your dog ever failed to give a complete final response, such as

• What kind of searches give your dog problems?

only scratching and not biting, or only barking and not scratching?

• How does your dog react to distractions?

• How do you explain that?

• What odors mask the odors of drugs?

• Do you stimulate the dog prior to deploying for a search?

• What is a: "false alert," "false indication" or "false positive?"

• How do you stimulate the dog?

• Has your dog ever alerted in a location where no drugs were
subsequently found?

• Didn't you contaminate the car/boat/object when you touched the
toy to it during stimulation?

• Wouldn't this call into question the ability of the dog?

• Couldn't the odor from the toy still be in the air when you commanded
the dog to sniff the car?

• How would you explain this?
• lsn 't that a fonn of residual odor?
• What is residual odor?
• The actual scent molecule in heroin is acetic acid, isn't it?

§ 10-5.

Pseudo-Narcotic Questions

• The actual scent molecule in cocaine is methyl benzoate, isn't it?

• Is pseudo-cocaine a controlled substance?

• Aren't these molecules found in other substances?

• Does your dog find pseudo-cocaine?




§ 10-6

• What would happen if I placed some pseudo-cocaine in ~e search


§ Io-7

• Where did you start the dog in his/her search?

• What is the difference between pseudo-cocaine and real cocaine?

• Did the dog have the idea that you wanted him/her to begin a

• Are you a chemist?

• Do you give him/her a command?

• Do you have any training in chemistry?

• Was there anyone around you when you were searching with the

• How many times has your dog alerted to a pseudo-drug or any other
substance that was not actually a controlled substance?
• Can we hide some pseudo-cocaine to see if your dog would find it
and alert or give a final response?

• During the course of the search, was the dog ever distracted from hiSJ
her search?
• While the dog was searching, did he/she at any time give you ar
indication of the presence of the odor of narcotics?

• Why do/don't you use pseudo-drugs to train your dog?
• What was his/her reaction or indication?
• Would you agree that the United States Bureau of Immigration and
Customs Enforcement ("ICE") operates one of the nation's premier
detector dog training programs?
• Are you aware that ICE uses pseudo-cocaine in their training

• At what specific location did the dog give you that indication?
• Did you or any of the other officers present, investigate that spot o
location where the dog indicated?

• To your knowledge, what was the result or outcome of this indicatio1
and the subsequent investigation?

§ 1~.

Incident Questions

• Is your dog currently in good health?

• There was property seized for forfeiture in this case, yet no drug
were found. How can you explain that?

• Was he/she in good health on (date)?

§ 10-7.

Currency Questions

• Directing your attention to (date), were you on duty?
• What were your work hours that day?
• Were you and your narcotic dog ever asked to respond to a specific
location, and if so, by whom?
• At what tiine?
• Did any officers meet you at the scene and tell you about the

• Before you had your dog sniff the currency, did you check the are
for contamination?
• Is it possible that the currency became tainted with the odor '
controlled substances after it was in the possession of the narcoti•
officers and before you conducted a sniff]
• When your dog indicated on that money, you had no idea of ho
much of it was tainted with drug odor, did you?

• Could you describe the scene (the area to be searched)?

• If a single contaminated bill were placed it in a stack of 100 bil
would your dog would indicate on the entire stack?

• What did you do?

• On how many occasions has your dog not alerted to currency?


§ 10-7



• Do your training records show how many times the dog has sniffed
currency and how many times your dog has alerted to currency?
• How do you know that the dog did not indicate on the odor of

§ lo-8.

§ 10-8

Patrol Service Dog (Use of Force Liability) Questions

• Did you review any documents prior to your deposition this
• What documents did you review?

• Isn't it true that a large portion of currency in circulation is tainted
with the odors of drugs?
• Are you aware of published scientific studies showing that a majority
of $20.00 bills in California are tainted with drug residue?

• What documents did you bring with you today? (Some deposition
subpoenas are "subpoenas duces tecum" and require that the witness
bring specified documents so that the attorney can ask questions
about the documents)

• How many times has your dog indicated on currency that has no drug
odor on it?

• Have you reviewed the police reports about the incident involved in
this lawsuit before today?

• Isn't it true that your dog could indicate on currency that became
tainted weeks before the sniffi

• How long has it been since you reviewed those police reports?
• Did you review anything else in preparation for this deposition?

• How is it that your dog alerted on this currency, yet you say that one
gram is the threshold for an indication?
• Do you believe that every large quantity of currency is drug-tainted?
Why or why not?
• Would you agree that it is best to conduct a sniff in the closest possible
proximity to the seizure of currency or other items?

• Did you review any audio or video recordings, any diagrams or
• When did you begin work with the (name) police department?
• Did you work at any other law enforcement jobs prior to that?
• How long have you been a police service dog handler?

• Why was there a delay in this case?
• Prior to the sniff, was the money counted?
• Was a money-counting machine used?
• Could the money be contaminated while in police custody, prior to
the sniffi
• If one of the officers had touched the drugs and then the money,
wouldn't that invalidate the results of your dog's sni.ff?
• Do you have an opinion on how much time elapsed between when
your dog sniffed the currency and alerted and when the currency was
actually exposed, if ever, to controlled substances?

See the Training Questions section above. Many of the
training questions and questions relating to certification and
professional associations apply to all service dog profiles.
• Do you do any continuing education or training with your dog?
• Howoften?
• Who conducts the training?
• Are there records of this training?
• Did (dog's name) have a previous handler?
• Why was this breed selected?
• Prior to this incident, how many hours of training had (dog's name)





§ 10-8

• How and when did your agency acquire (dog's name)?



§ 10-8

• What factors do you consider prior to deploying your police service
dog to search for a suspect?

• How many dogs have you handled?
• Did you certify (dog's name) or any previous dog through any agency
or organization?

• Are you taught to give a verbal warning before releasing your dog to
find or to apprehend a person?

• Are there any circumstances when you would not give a warning?
• How frequently?
• Describe those circumstances.

• Are there criteria for certifying a dog?
• Did you give a warning in this case?
• Who administered the certification testing?
• How do you know whether your dog is tracking the correct person

• Were scores or grades given?
• Do you know what scores your dog achieved?

• Was your dog on a leash at any point as you searched for the suspect
in this case?

• For those certifications, what criteria (rules and grading system for
passing the test) are used, if you know?

• Did you ever remove that leash from your dog?

• For those certifications, how many evaluators are used, if you

• What does your dog do to communicate that the suspect is hiding in
a particular place?

• How are the evaluators selected?

• Is your dog is trained to bite individuals in some situations or is there
any training on when your dog should or should not bite a suspect?

• What, if any, were the disqualifying behaviors or criteria in the
various elements of certification?

Use offorce liability lawsuit depositions will each be highly
fact specific. However, some ofthe following general questions
are likely to arise, and handlers should prepare to answer these
or similar questions. Almost every case will involve questions
about the handler~ and the dog~ training, performance records,
and the handler~ deployment decision factors.
• What were you told about the suspect in this case when you were
called to respond with your police service dog?
• Tell me everything that you knew about the suspect before you
decided to deploy your police service dog?

• Could you give me an example of situations in which the dog will,
because of training, bite?

• In a situation like that, is the dog trained to first give some other
signal, such as barking?
• What are the steps that you take if you believe that a suspect is hiding
and the suspect refuses to come out from hiding?
• Do you have any guidelines or rules or regulations as to how you
are supposed to proceed when you are with your canine partner
searching, for example, a house?
• Do you have a procedure or protocol that includes steps you should
take after someone has been bitten by a police service dog?

• What was the basis for your knowledge?
• What are those procedures?
• What did you do to verify that information?
• Have you ever been named as a defendant in any other lawsuit?





Chapter 11

• Have you had any discipliruuy complaints filed against you?
• What were the subjects of any prior disciplinary complaints against


Sample policy for drug detector dog deployment


Sample policy for patrol dog deployment

• What use of force model or continuum does your agency follow?


Glossary of detector dog tenninology

• What is your understanding of where the use of a police service dog
is placed on that continuum?


English and Spanish deployment warnings


• Did you complete a training course or school to qualify you to handle
a police service dog?

North American police service dog regional organizations and


Sample search warrant affidavits based on drug detector dog

• Where and when?


Bibliography of advanced readings

• How long was the course?
• Was there a test at the end of the course?
• What did the test cover?
• How well did you perform in the course?
• How well did your dog perform in the course?
• Have you handled other police service dogs?




§ 11-1

§ 11- 1.


Sample Policy for Drug Detector Police Se..Vice Dog

§ 11- 1


There is reasonable suspicion that the personal
possession contains illegal drugs or evidence
of a crime and;


The time required to conduct the sniff is limited
in duration.

County Sheriffs Office
Policy No.
Revised September I, 2008


Sheriff's dnsg detector police service dogs may be
used to sniff luggage or other personal affects of an
individual on either a random or selective basis if
the items are not in the possession of the owner (for
example, on conveyor belts, in the possession of
baggage handlers, etc.).


Whenever possible, exploratory sniffing in public
facilities should be conducted with the advance
knowledge of the facility manager. It should be
conducted without interference or annoyance to the
public or interruption of faci lity operations.


Drug detector police service dogs should not
generally be used to sniff persons. Detector dogs
tra.ined to provide a passive final response to the
odors of controlled substances may be used to sniff
persons who enter the controlled access area of the
County Jail and who are separated from the dog by
means of an approved expanded metal screen.

Next revision due September I, 2009

To establish the County Sheriff's Office policy regarding the
management and tactical deployment of Sheri ff's Office dnsg
detector police service dogs for operational purposes.



)[J .

Because of their superior senses of smell and hearing and
physical capabilities, the trained law enforcement drug
detector police service dog is a valuable supplement to Office
staff abilities. However, utilization of detector dogs requires
adherence to procedures that properly control their use-offorce potential and that channel their specialized capabilities
into legally acceptable crime prevention and control act ivities.



Dnsg Detector Police Service Dog Sniffs for Dnsgs. Without
consent, detector dog sniffs for drugs are authorized only when
there is no reasonable expectation of privacy in the item(s)
to be searched, or as otherwise specified in this policy. If not
specifically addressed in the following guidelines, deputies
should use the foregoing principle and the direction of the
detector dog team supervisor to detem1ine the permissible
scope of police service detector dog sniffs.

Dnsg detector dog drug sniffs of vehicles may be
conducted when:

There is reasonable suspicion to believe that the
operator or passengers are in possession of illegal
narcotics, or


The detector dog sniff is lim ited to the exterior of
the vehicle and the vehicle is otherwise lawfully
detained, or


The detector dog has indicated the presence of the
odors of illegal narcotics by giving the trained final
response at the exterior of the vehicle, or


Consent for a vehicle interior sniff is voluntarily
provided by an authorized person.

Public Facilities and P laces
( I)

Sheriff's drug detector police service dogs should
not be used to sniff luggage or related personal
items in the physical possession of (i.e., control of
or immediate proximity to) an individual in a public
faci lity or place unless:




§ 11- 1



Team Qualifications and Training

Applicants for drug detector police service
must have:

dog teams


A minimum of three years of uniform patrol
experience with satisfactory work performance,
disciplinary and medical leave records;


A willingness to remain with the unit for an extended
period of time as prescribed by the Sheriff;

(3) A willingness (together with other family members)
to care for and house the police service dog at the
deputy's residence with a secure outdoor area for the
drug detector police service dog that conforms with
Office requirements;

vii. New drug detector police service dog handlers must
complete the prescribed detector dog training course and
successfully meet all course requirements.
vii i. The police service dog supervisor shall ensure that basic
and in-service training and certification is conducted on a
regular basis.

Drug detector police service dog handlers are required to
demonstrate acquired abilities to the police service dog
supervisor on a periodic basis as prescribed in Office


Fai lure to participate in or qualizy under established
training standards will result in de-certification of the
team. The team may not be deployed until re-certified.

A strong desire to work with police service dogs and
a willingness to care for and train the animal; and

(5) The ability to pass designated physical fitness and
agility tests related to the tasks of police service dog

A deputy's prior drug enforcement performance
record may be considered in selection of a drug
detector police service dog handler.


The Sheriff's police service dog team supervisor shall be
responsible for selection of drug detector police service
dog handlers in accordance with established office
procedures and in consultation with the Sheriff.


The police service dog team supervisor shall maintain
records that document the use and the proficiency of
individual police service dogs certified in drug detection.
This documentation shall be readily available to drug
detector police service dog handlers and others who may
need it when seeking warrants.


All Sheriff's Office drug detector police service dogs
must meet established POST Service Dog certification
requirements for the particular detector dog duty assigned.
Untrained detector dogs may not be used for police service
dog duty.

§Il- l

15 1


§ 11-2


§ 11-2.

Sample Policy for Patrol Dog Deployment



§ 11-2

County Sheriff's Office

Additional factors may be considered, depending on
the circumstances of the deployment and environmental
conditions. These factors include:

Policy No.


Whether there is a risk to deputies or to other persons
if the police service dog is deployed;


The probability that the suspect will escape if a
police service dog is not deployed;


The probability that deputies of other persons may
be harmed or threatened with imminent harm if a
police service dog is not deployed; and,

Revised September 1, 2008
Next revision due September 1, 2009


To establish the County Sheriff's Office policy regarding the
management and tactical deployment of Sheriff's Office police
service dogs for operational purposes.



Police service dog teams are available on a 24-hour, oncall basis. Their uses include:


Because of their superior senses of smell and hearing and
physical capabilities, the trained law enforcement police
service dog is a valuable supplement to Office staff abilities.
However, utilization of police service dogs requires adherence
to procedures that properly control their use-of-force potential
and that channel their specialized capabilities into legally
acceptable crime prevention and control activities.


Police Service Dog Team Utilization for Location/Apprehension
of Suspects.


The deployment of a police service dog to locate and
apprehend a suspect is a use of force that must follow the
Sheriff's Office principles of escalation and de-escalation
of force.

the severity of the crime;


Whether the suspect poses an immediate threat to
the safety of the deputies or others;


Whether the suspect is actively resisting arrest or
attempting to evade arrest at the time;


Conducting building searches for what are believed
to be serious felony or violent misdemeanor suspects
in hiding;


Assisting in the arrest or prevention of the escape of
serious or violent offenders;


Protecting deputies or others from death or serious
injwy; and engaging in assignments not listed here
with the approval of the police service dog team
A police service dog team may be used to respond to
minor complaint situations but the dog should not be


Police service dog team assistance may be requested from
any deputy through a supervisor to Dispatch. Dispatch
personnel should forward information concerning the
incident to the police service dog team supervisor or an
available handler.


Police service dog teams should not be used to apprehend
anyone suspected to be under the influence of drugs or
alcohol if no other crime is involved, nor to apprehend a
mentally disturbed person if no other crime is involved.

Decisions to deploy a police service dog should be guided
by consideration of the following factors:




§ 11- 2



Where a tactical deployment is justified by Office policy,
the tactical measures used shall be at the discretion of
the police service dog handler and must be objectively


Sheriff's police service dogs should not normally be
handled or given commands by anyone other than the
assigned handler.


§ Il- 2


All Sheriff's Office police service dogs must meet
established POST Service Dog certification requirements
for the particular police service dog duty assigned.
Untrained dogs may not be used for police service dog


New police service dog handlers must complete the
prescribed police service dog training course and
successfully meet all course requirements.


The police service dog team supervisor shall ensure that
basic and in-service training and certification is conducted
on a regular basis.


Handlers are required to demonstrate acquired abilities to
the supervisor on a periodic basis as prescribed in Office


Failure to participate in or qualify under established
training standards will result in de-certification of the
team. The team may not be deployed until re-certified.

Team Qualifications and Training

Applicants for police service dog teams must have:




A minimum of three years of uniform patrol
experience with satisfactory work performance,
disciplinary and medical leave records;
A willingness to remain with the unit for an extended
period of time as prescribed by the Sheriff;
A willingness (together with other family members)
to care for and house the police service dog at the
deputy's residence with a secure outdoor area for the
dog that conforms with Office requirements;


A strong desire to work with police service dogs and
a willingness to care for and train the police service
dog; and


The ability to pass designated physical fitness and
agility tests related to the tasks of police service dog

The Sheriff's police service dog team supervisor shall be
responsible for selection of dog handlers in accordance
with established office procedures and in consultation
with the Sheriff.
The police service dog team supervisor shall maintain
records that document the use and the proficiency of
individual police service dogs in locating and apprehending
persons and locating evidence and other items.



Police Service Dog Bites and Injuries. Use of specially tra ined
police service dogs for law enforcement responsibilities may
constitute a real or implied use of force. When a Sheriff's
Office police service dog is deployed is a situation where the
use of force is probable, deputies may only use that degree of
force that reasonably appears necessary to apprehend or secure
a suspect as governed by the Sheriff's Office use-of-force

Whenever a Sheriff's police service dog has bitten or
scratched an individual or has alleged to have done so,
whether or not in the line of duty; the handler should do
the following:

If no arrest is made, an offer will be made to the
individual to provide medical care and treatment by
a qualified medical professional.


If an arrest is made, the individual will be provided
with medical ~ttenti on in accordance with agency
policy on transporting and booking prisoners.




§ 11- 2




The handler should take color photographs of the
affected area if possible prior to and follo.wing
medical treatment.


The handler should take color photographs of any
area alleged to have been injured, even if there is no
visible injury.


The handler shall prepare and submit a use-of-force

Whenever a police service dog is deployed or a person
is injured, a written report shall be made detailing the
circumstances surrounding the incident, the identity of the
individual involved and any witnesses, whether the dog
located the suspect, the extent of any injuries if known,
and measures taken in response to the incident.

Building Searches and Suspects in Hiding. A primary use of
Sheriff's police service dogs is for locating suspects hiding in
buildings or other structures. These searches should be governed
by the following:

The building perimeter shall be secured by deputies and
assisting police personnel.


Whenever possible, the building's owner should be
contacted to determine whether there may be tenants
or others in the building and to ascertain the building



When a police service dog building search is anticipated,
n preliminary search by officers should not be conducted
because this will interfere with the dog's ability to
discriminate scents.


Upon entrance to the building, all exits should be secured,
and communications limited to tactical communications.


The dog may be unleashed during a building search unless
t11ere is an imminent risk of injury to innocent persons
within the facility.

Generally the dog should be re leased once a backup
officer is available to work witll the police service
dog team.


Except in exigent circumstances or where there is an
imminent danger of death or serious injury, the dog
should be kept in visual contact by the police service
dog handler.


The police service dog should not be used to search
facilities thnt contain substances potentially harmful to t11e
animal unless overriding risk to human life is present.


Before commencing the search, the handler or other
appropriate personnel should make a loud announcement,
repeated twice. The announcement should say that there
are deputies on the premises and that a trained Sheriff's
police service dog will be released and may bite any
person in the building if he or she does not surrender

A reasonable amount of time should be allowed for
the suspect to respond. If possible and tactically
advisable, this warning should be repeated on each
level of all multi-level structures.


Where there is a reasonable belief that the suspect
speaks a language other than English, an officer or
other individual fluent in iliat language should be
summoned to the scene if reasonably available and
tile situation permits.


If circumstances dictate that a verbal warning would
be tactically unsound, no warnings need be given. In
such cases the handler shall document tile reason(s)
for omitting the police service dog warnings.

The on-scene supervisor should also take the following
steps in preparation for the police service dog search:

Evacuate aJI tenants, workers or others from the


Request that all air conditioning, heating or other
air-blowing systems be shut off so that they will
not interfere with the police service dog's scent
discrimination abilities.

§ 11-2



§ 11-2



When apprehending suspects the police service dog sha}l


be commanded to disengage as soon as the suspect ts

§ 11-2

Avoid vehicle or foot movement in the area where
the suspect or subject was last seen.

subdued or readily complies with the handler's direction.

Police service dogs used for tracking persons should
remain on a leash of sufficient length to provide a
reasonable measure of safety to the subject of the search
without compromising the dog's tracking abilities.


On-scene supervisory personnel should:

10. Arrestees should not be transported in the same vehicle
with a Sheriff's police service dog unless alternative
transportation is not available and immediate transport is
essential for safety or security reasons.

Crowd Control



Police service dog teams may respond as backup but
may not deploy the dog for crowd control at peaceful
Police service dog teams may be used upon approval of the
Sheriff or Incident Commander to protect life or property
during a riot or other major unlawful assembly after an
order to disperse has been made. In these situations, the
dog should:



Secure the perimeter of the area to be searched;


Secure the integrity of the area to be searched by
keeping all personnel out of the area; and


Protect all items of clothing that will be used for
scent from being handled.

Police Service Dog Use and Care


Sheriff's police service dogs shall not be used for breeding,
participation in shows, field trials, exhibitions, or other
demonstrations, or for on-duty or off-duty employment
unless authorized by the Sheriff.

Not initiate any offensive action, unless to guard
against imminent loss of life, serious bodily injury
or substantial property damage.


Tracking. Where trained Sheriff's police se~ice dog~ are
available for tracking, they may be used wtth superv1sory
approval to track missing persons or criminal suspects. They
may also be used to locate evidence that may have been
abandoned or hidden in a specified open area. Such searches
are subject to the following conditions and limitations:

Deputies shall maintain their police service dogs both
on-duty and off-duty in a safe and controlled manner.
Sheriff's police service dogs should not be allowed to run
loose unless engaged in authorized training or exercise.


The Office shall provide police service dog officers with
proper housing for police service dogs and will conduct
periodic inspections to ensure that the housing is properly


Police service dog handlers are personally responsible for
the daily care and feeding of their police service dogs to



Be leashed at all times to protect individuals from
serious injury, and


When deputies are pursuing a suspect and contact with the
suspect is lost, the deputy, prior to summoning a police
service dog team, should:

Stop and pinpoint the location where the suspect
was last seen;


Maintenance and cleaning of the kennel and yard
area where the police service dog is housed;


Shut off engines of vehicles in the area if possible;


Provision of food, water and general diet maintenance as prescribed by the Office's authorized veterinarian;





§ 11-2


Grooming on a daily basis or more often as required
by weather, working conditions or other factors;


Daily exercise; and


General medical attention and maintenance of health
care records.

§ 11-3.

Glossary of Detector Dog Terminology

Efforts to increase professionalism in the detector dog world,
augmented by the work of the Scientific Working Group on Dog and
Orthogonal Detector Guidelines (SWGDOG), illustrate the need to more
precisely define the expected behaviors for detector dog performance
and certification. A move from general terms to more specific terms will
benefit all involved and result in less confusion and more precision in the
development of detector dog law by the courts. Only those terms that are
commonly used in legal discussion of detector dog evidence are included
here. Most of these definitions are taken from SWGDOG Guidelines. For
a more detailed and extensive lexicon of terms, including annotations, see


Where the handler is unable to perform these and related
duties due to illness, injury or leave another police service
dog handler may be assigned to temporarily care for the
dog; or the dog may be housed in a departmentallyapproved kennel.


Teasing, agitating or roughhousing with a Sheriff's police
service dog is strictly prohibited unless performed as part
of a training exercise.


Handlers should not permit anyone to pet or hug their
police service dog without their prior permission ~d
immediate supervision. Should a civilian express a destre
to do so, he Qr she should be informed that Sheriff's police
service dogs are serious working dogs and that they can
be dangerous if improperly approached.

Air scenting



§ 11-3

Air scent dog


A police service dog handler may apply to take posse~sion
of his dog where the dog is retired from duty or reheved
due to injury; or the handler is transferred or promoted or
retires and a decision is made not to retrain the dog for
another handler.

A dog using air scenting techniques to detect a trained
A technique used by a dog to locate a target odor.
The dog searches for target odor on wind/air currents
and attempts to identify/work on a scent cone to the
A characteristic change in ongoing behavior in
response to a trained odor, as interpreted by the
handler. The components of the alert may include:
change of behavior, interest, and final response or

Note: It is the handler's responsibility to report when
the dog has alerted or given an indication and identity
what behavior the dog uses to do so (the response).
The term "alert" is used to define the handler's
interpretation of the dog's behavior.
A training or certification exercise in which the target
Blank search
odor is not present.
Cadaver detector A dog trained to detect and locate a dead human or
the remains of a dead human. See Human remains

detector dog.
A process that attests to the successful completion
of an examination of relevant skills for the canine



§ 11-3


Change of

Confinned alert

(Detector dog
Detector dog

Dog handler

Evidence search
False response


A characteristic pattern of behaviors, as interpreted
by the handler, that occurs when the dog detects a
trained odor. This differs from other olfactory interest
that otherwise are exhibited by the dog in response to
the daily environment.
Note: The initial change of behavior typically leads
to following the odor to its source and then giving
the trained response. The pattern of behavior may be
unique to each dog.
An alert for which the presence of a trained odor can
be verified or corroborated.
Note: Also referred to as a "hit," "find," and/or
"positive response."
After injtial assessment of the search environment,
the hand ler conducts an efficient, effective and
thorough search.
A dog trained to detect and alert/respond/indicate to
the presence of certain scents/odors for which it has
been trained.
The trained person who works the dog.
An individual with relevant training and experience
m the discipline being evaluated, who assesses
the performance of canine, handler, or team,
while showing no bias or partiality. See Certifying
A dog trained to locate and indicate items in question
by means of detecting human scent.
In a controlled environment, the dog responds as if a
trained substance was present when it is known that
it is not. This is false response and a false positive.



Final response

§ 11- 3

A behavior that a dog has been trained to exhibit in
the presence of a target odor source. Thjs behavior
may be either passive (sit, stare, down, point, etc.) or
active (bite, bark, scratch, etc.).
Note: An absence of a final response does not
necessarily negate any behavioral responses given
earlier in the alert sequence. Therefore, absence of
a final response does not mean a target odor is not

Firearm detector A dog that is specifically trained to locate and respond
to the presence of firearms by associated odor.
Human detector A dog trained to detect and locate live human
Human remains A dog trained to detect and locate human remains.
detector dog
See Cadaver detector dog.
The dog's response to the odor in the manner in
which it has been trained, independently, and without
Any reaction to an odor which may include: A
noticeable, readable, physical change in behavior in
a detector dog during the search when the dog reacts
to (i.e., is interested in) an odor, and/or pattern of
behavior following the dog's initial reaction to a
trained odor when the dog displays enthusiasm and
desire to remain and trace the trained odor to its
source. See Alert.
Odor that lingers with no detectible residue or product
Lingering odor
present after the aids or targets have been removed.
See Residual odor.
Continuing training conducted beyond the initial
training of a discipline, designed to maintain a level
of proficiency by ensuring the team's capability to
perform desired tasks.
When the dog fails to alert in the known presence of
the target odor; a situation in which the dog fails to
exhibit the trained behaviors in the presence of the
target odor on which he or she was trained.
Note: Also referred to as a ''false negative" or "nonalert."



§ 11-3



A dog trained in more than one discipline, i.e., patrol/
narcotic or patrol/explosive.
A "miss" by the dog in the known presence of the
substance that is there; a situation in which the dog
fails to exhibit the trained behaviors in the presence
of the substance on which he or she was trained. A
change of behavior followed by a positive indication
which cannot be confirmed by the handler. This
may be the result of residual odor that the dog can
detect but which cannot be confirmed by technology
or direct observation. A non-productive response
may also be an error - a false positive - but these
outcomes cannot be distinguished in an operational



Operational usage: Low probability of alerting
to anything other than a target odor and a high
probability of alerting to a target odor.

Legal usage: Evidence that establishes a fair
probability that a target odor is present.
Scientific usage: The extent to which a measurement
is repeatable and consistent and free from random
errors; all measurements have random components
because of imperfections in the measurement process,
and the fact that when one measures something it is
usually slightly changed in the process. Reliability is
determined by precisio~ sensitivity, resolution, and
consistency. It is the extent to which similar results
are obtained when measuring the same behavior on
different occasions.

Note: In a certification procedure a handler will know
whether there is an actual false positive. A handler
cannot know whether or not there is false positive in
most operational situations.

Note: This term is often used in science when assessing
how well an observer has measured behaviors. There
are two categories of observer reliability:


The chemical mixture of volatile compounds that
stimulates the olfactory neurons.
Passive response A type of response that the dog displays or indicates
in a manner that does not disturb the environment
(i.e., sit, stand, or lie quietly after the detector dog
has detected a trained odor).
A change of behavior followed by a positive
indication which can be confirmed by the handler.

1) intra-observer reliability (or observer consistency):
how consistent the observer is at evaluating the same
behavior at different times or in similar dogs.
2) inter-observer reliability: how consistent different
observers are when evaluating the same dog.
Residual odor

Rescue dog/
Search and
rescue (SAR)


§ 11-3

Odor that remains from training aids or actual
objects of focus once the aids or objects have been
A dog trained to locate or indicate live victims of
accidents or disasters.


§ 11-3



A behavior that a dog has been trained to exhibit upon
locating the source of a target odor. This behavior
may be either passive (sit, stare, down, point) or
active (bite, bark, scratch).
Note: There are non-indications (where the dog does
not give the trained response) and non-productive
responses (where the dog gives the response but the
presence of the material cannot be confirmed by m1m
or machine).

Also known as scent object or scent pad. The scent
article refers to an object containing the odor to be
Scent association When a dog learns to identify a trained odor with a
specific reward.
The path of dispersion that the odor follows in the
Scent cone
given wind or air currents, and in a given thermal
A dog's olfactory ability to distinguish between
various odors.
Single blind
An evaluation of the dog/handler team's ability to
complete an exerc ise where the evaluator knows the
desired outcome and the handler does not.
Odors which detector dogs are trained to detect.
Target odors
The working threshold for a dog may be defined by
its training history and this may include a minimum
and maximum amount to which a dog may respond.
Scent article



An alert for which the presence of a trained odor
cannot be confirmed. This may be the resu lt of
residual or lingering odor that tl1e dog can detect
but which bas not been confirmed by technology or
direct observation.
Note: A lso referred to as an "unconfirmed hit and/
or unconfirmed fi nd." In a certification procedure a
handler should know whether or not tlJCre is false
positive. A handler may not know whether or not
there is false positive in most operational situations.
All unc<>nfirmed alert may also be an error - a false
positive- but these outcomes cannot be distinguished
in an operational environment. False positives can
often be ruled out by interview or investigation.

Note: In scientific usage, this term represents the
lowest concentration of a chemical vapor that a dog
can be trained to detect.


§ 11-3


§ 11-4


§ 11-4.

English and Spanish Deployment Warnings

No court bas ever ruled that n police service dog deployment must be
preceded by a warning in Spanish or any other foreign language. However,
whether a warning was given or not given is a key element in a court's
analysis of the reasonableness of force when a police service dog bites a
s uspect. Szabla v. City ofBrooklyn Park, 486 F.3d 385, 397 (8111 C ir. 2007).
If there is reason to believe that the suspect understands only Spanish,
giving a warning in Spanish wi ll support a finding that the force was
objectively reasonable.
The most essential element of speaking Spanish is the understanding
that while the majority of the consonants are the same as in English the
vowel sounds are unique and consistent.




Patrol dog commands
• Stop or 1 will send the dog.
Alto o mandan; al perro.
A ll-toe oh mahn-dah-ray ahl puy-roh.
• Police, come out or I will send in the dog. You may be bitten.
Policia, vengan afuera o mWldare al perro. E l puede morderles.
Po-lees-ee-ah, vain-gan ah-fway-ra oh mahn-dah-ray ahl pay-roh.
Ay/ pway-they more-dare-/ace.
• FinaJ warning, come out!
Ultima advertencia, vengan afuera!
Oohl-tee-mah ad-ver-ten-see-ah, vein-gan ah-fivay-ra.
• Don't move and the dog wiJI not bite you.
No se mueve y el perm no le mordera.
No say mway -vay ee ay/ pay-roh no lay more-dare-a/z.

A- (AH) as in " haw" or "hot"
E - (EH) as in "bay"

• Stop fighting my dog.
Deje de luchar con mi perro.
Day-hay day Jew-char cohn mee pay-roh.

I - (EE) as in "he"
0 - (OH) as in "hoe"

U - (00) as in "you"

• Stay away from my dog.
No se acerque a mi perro.
No say a-sure-kay a mee pay-roh.

Y - (EE) as in "he"

Particular Consonants
Drug detector dog commands
ll =y
• Are there any drugs in the car?
i)-lay drogas en el carro?
Ay drog-gahs ehn ay/ car-oh?


• Where are the drugs?
£,D6nde estan las drogas?
Dohn-day ays-talm las droll-gallS?

fi = ny

h is always silent

• My dog will scratch and bite where drugs are hidden.
Mi perro rasgulla y muerde d6nde bay drogas.
Mee pay-roh rahs-goon-eyah ee mwayr-they dohn-day ay drohgahs.

rr is a rolled "r"



§ 11-4



• My dog will damage your car.
Mi perro dafiara a su carro.
Mee pay-roh dahn-yah-rah ah soo car-oh.

• Kneel!
jDe rodillas!
Day roh-dee-ahs!

Arrest and felony stop commands

• Lie flat on your front!
jAcuestese boca abajo!
Ah-kway-stah-say bo-kall ah-ba-ho!.

• Don't move!
jNo se mueva!
No say mway-va!
• Throw the keys out the window.
Tire las Haves por Ia ventana.
Tee-ray lahs ya-vays poria ven-tah-nah.
• Put your hands against the windshield.
Ponga sus manos sobre el parabrisas.
Polm-ga soos mah-nose so-bray ayl pah-rah-bree-sahs.
• You are under arrest!
jEstlt arrestado!
Ay-stah ah-re-stah-tho!
• Reach your hand out the window and open the door from the
Saque s u mano por Ia ventana y abra Ia puerta desde afuera.
Sah-kay soo malt-no por Ia ven-talt-na ee all-bra Ia pwair-ta desday ah-fway-ra.

• Spread your legs.
Extienda sus piernas.
Ex-tee-ayn-da soos pee-ayr-nahs.
• Out!
jSalga! (or) jAfuera!
Sal-gah (or) ah-fway-rah!
• Slowly!
• Now!
jAhora !
• Tum around!
• Walk backwards!
jCamine para atras!
Cah-mee-nay pah-ra ah-tras!

• Everybody out!
jTodos afuera!
Toe-dos ah-fway-ra!

• Stop!
jAlto! (or) jPara!

• Hands up!
jManos arriba!
Malt-nose ah-ree-bah!

All-toe or pall-ra!

• Put your hands behind your head!
jPonga sus manos atras de su cabeza!
Pohn-ga soos mah-nose ah-tras day soo cah-bay-sa!


• Down!


§ 11-4

§ 11-4



• Separate your feet!
jSepare los pies!
Say-pail-ray lohs pee-ays!

§ 11-5.

• Don't talk!
;No hablel
No ah-blay!

California Narcotic Can.ine Association,

§ 11-5

North American Police National and Regional Service Dog
Organizations a nd Training Resources

American Working Dog Association,

Canadian Police Canine Association,
• Drop it!
jDejela caer!
Day-hey-lah kai-ayr!

Canine Accelerant Detection Association,
Canine Legal Update and Opinions,
Dogs Against Drugs,
Eastem States Working Dog Association,
lnland Empire Police K-9 Association,
International Explosive Detection Dog Association,
International Police Work Dog Association,
Law Enforcement Bloodhound Association,
Military Working Dog Foundation,
National Police Bloodhound Association,
National Police Canine Association,
National Narcotic Detector Dog Association,
National Tactical Police Dog Association,
North American Police Work Dog Association,
Pacific Northwest Police Detection Dog Association,
Royal Canadian Mounted Police, e.htm
Scientific Working Group on Dog and Ortltogonal Detector Guidelines, http://



§ 11- S


Southern Tter Police Canine Association,


§ 11-6.

§ 11-6

Sample Search Warrant Affidavit Based on Drug Detector
Dog Deployment

United Police & Correction K-9 Association,
United States Police Canine Association,
Western States Police Canine Association, http://www.wspcanet/
Manitoba Police Canine Association,

The Fourth Amendment requires that search warrants shall only issue
on probable cause, supported by oath and affinnation, and particularly
describing the place to be searched and the things to be seized. An officer
must prepare a writ1en (or otherwise recorded) statement that the officer
swears to be true. The officer preparing the affidavit is known as an affiant.
A sworn written statement is referred to as an affidavit. When an officer
presents an affidavit for a search warrant to a judge, the judge reviews the
affidavit and the accompanying search warrant. If the judge finds that the
affidavit states sufficient probable cause to search, the judge will sign the
warrant and it becomes a judicial order to conduct a search.
Fonnats for affidavits and search warrants vary from state to state.
However, affidavits (sometimes called "probable cause statements"),
generally must contain the following elements:
• Caption. The caption lists the name of the court authorized to issue
the search warrant.
• Affiant resume. Sometimes called a "hero statement," this section
lists the affiant's training, experience, recognition, certifications
and honors, particularly those relating to the types of investigations
relevant to the object of the search warrant.
• Description of the place or object to be searched.
• Description of the person or things to be seized.
• Probable cause statement. This is the infonnation that provides the
court with a lawful basis to issue the search warrallt. The probable
cause statement is often based solely or primarily on the trained fina l
response of a detector dog.
• Notice and time. A search warrant generaJiy must be executed during
the day1ime and upon notice. However, in some circumstances the
court may authorize "no-knock" and/or night1imc execution of a
search warrant. Search warrants based on detector dog evidence
usually will not involve the exigencies necessary to request no-knock
or nighttime execution authority.
Following are two sample search warrant affidavits. The first sample
search warrant affidavit was provided by Detective Steve Sloan of the San
Diego (Califomia) Police Department. The second sample search warrant
affidavit was provided by Officer Scott Cooper of the Aurora (Colorado)





Police Department. Both samples are used by permission. These sample
affidavits will help a new detector dog handler prepare the portion of the
affidavit that establishes the training, certification and reliability factors
for the detector dog and dog handler that is necessary for a court to find
probable cause to search. Even though one. sample addresses a pa~el
interdicted in transit, and the other a safe seued by officers, the portzons
describing the qualifications of the of the detector dog and handler apply
to any kind ofsearch Wan'ant affidavit based on detector dog evidence and
they will guide other detector dog handlers in drafting solid affidavits. The
suspects •names and addresses, as well as the supporting officers' names
have been changed.


§ ll-6a

§ 11-6a. Sample Parcel Seareh Warrant Affidavit




No. 27Al-666

I, Steve A. Sloan, do on oath make complaint, say and depose the
following on this 24th day of October, 20XX: I have substantial probable
cause to believe and I do believe I have cause to search the parcel currently
located at the Narcotic Task Force office located at 123 Thornton Ave.,
City and County of San Diego: One cardboard box bearing FEDEX
tracking # 333:XXX555; for the following property, to wit: controlled
substances including marijuana, heroin, cocaine, or methamphetamine,
and compounds or derivatives of controlled substances; paraphernalia for
the use, sale and transfer of controlled substances including baggies, tinfoil
wrapping, bottles, cardboard boxes or other containers; packaging material
such as Styrofoam packing peanuts, plastic bubble wrap and similar
packaging material; fabric softener sheets, fresh coffee grounds, food
condiments (mustard, ketchup, mayonnaise, barbecue sauce), automotive
grease, vacuum sealing machines and other materials and devices intended
to defeat detection by trained narcotic detector dogs; tape or other sealing
material; evidence of the transfer of controlled substances including
documentation reflecting the receipt or sales of controlled substances;
evidence of previously shipped packages such as bills of lading and
receipts from UPS, FEDEX, USPS and other commercial shippers; and
papers, documents and effects tending to show dominion and control over
said package, including fingerprints, handwriting, papers, or any document
and effect bearing a form of identification such as a person's name, Social
Security number or driver license number, and also any money or financial
instruments related to narcotic trafficking.
I am currently a detective for the San Diego Police Department
assigned to the San Diego Integrated Narcotic Task Force ("NTF"). I was
detached to the San Diego International Airport/Harbor Narcotic Task
Force from 1993 to 1996. I have observed many thousands of persons in
the airport environment and I have developed an expertise in observing
certain characteristics, of which one or more are commonly evident in the
majority of narcotic smuggling cases. I have been a police officer for over




20 years and have worked as a narcotic detector dog handler since 1985.
From 1988 to April 1993, I was the narcotic detector dog trainer for the
SDPD and subsequently trained and certified 30 narcotic detector dogs. I
am a certifying official for the California Narcotic ~an~e Association. I
have participated in over 300 arrests of persons for vtolatlons of controlled
substance laws. I was assigned to the NTF Commercial Interdiction Team
on May 8, 1996. I have been involved in over 100 cases at this assignment,
either as the case agent, canine handler or assisting detective. Additionally
I have been involved in over 100 parcel cases where I have utilized
surveillance techniques, profiles of persons and parcels and my narcotic
detector canine.

field experience in the identification of all types of controlled substances,
particularly those mentioned above, by sight and odor.

§ ll-6a

I have been trained and instructed that the U.S. Supreme Court has
held that drug courier profiles are clearly a lawful starting point for police
investigations, including the detention of individuals. United States v.
Sokolow, 490 U.S. 1 (1989); Florida v. Royer, 460 U.S. 491 (1983). If
profiling of people has been approved by courts, i~ would se~m profit~~ of
packages is equally permissible and I have been ~cted m ~y ~m~g
that profiling of packages is a lawful me~od ofbeg.~g drug m~r~1ct10n
investigations. I have been instructed m my trammg that detammg an
object so it can be exposed to a narcotic detection dog.requn:es.reasonable
suspicion. However, as explained above, parce}s. fallmg w1thm th~ d~g
trafficking profile provide the reasonable susp1c1on necessary to JUStify
such detention.
I have observed several thousand parcels during the course of my
duties. On selected parcels, I have observed certain characteristics that
although not illegal, when taken in their totality, lead ~e t~ believe the
parcel contains controlled substances. These mclude lllegt~le or nonexistent return addresses, misspelled street names, handwntten labels,
taped in an unusual manner, strong masking odors emitting from the
parcel and/or cash payment. Until recently, I have been able to routinely
confirm my suspicion by utilizing a narcotic det~ction can~e to al~rt and
obtaining a search warrant. I have leame~ durmg rece.nt msp~cttons ~f
parcels containing controlled substances dtscovered durmg routme aud1ts
by United Parcel Service Security Department that the drug smugglers are
utilizing extreme measures to shield the odor of the controlled substance
from the canine, such as extensive plastic packaging and the inclusion of
pervasive food and other masking odors.

§ ll-6a

On October 21, 20XX, NTF Team 4 agents and I were at the Federal
Express Office located at 321 Anystreet, San Diego, California. With the
permission of FEDEX Security, we were conducting a parcel interdiction
operation evaluating parcels for possibly containing controlled substances.
The parcel described in this affidavit was identified and presented to my
drug detector dog, Angus, for evaluation. Angus alerted on the parcel,
exhibiting the final response that he has been trained to give when he
detects the odors of controlled substances. This alert consisted of a trained
behavior given by Angus that indicated to me that the parcel contained the
odor of a controlled substance to which Angus is trained to detect I took
custody of the parcel, gave Fedex a receipt and transported it to the NTF
office to be held pending issuance of a search warrant for the package.
In February 2002, I was assigned to train Angus in the area of narcotic
detection. Angus had received approximately 40 hours of training in the
detection of marijuana, cocaine, heroin and methamphetamine prior to
this under the direction of Mary Ann Bohnett of Far Fetched Retrievers
kennels. Ms. Bohnett is a trainer and certifying official for the California
Narcotic Canine Association. On April 2, 2002, after 40 hours of training
in the detection of marijuana, heroin, methamphetamine and cocaine,
Angus was certified as 100% proficient in the detection of the odors of
these substances by SDPD Detective and narcotic detector dog handler
In October 2002, Sloan and Angus were re-certified by California
Narcotic Canine Association Certifying official C. Roe. In July 2003, Sloan
and Angus were re-certified by California Narcotic Canine Association
certifying official T. Smith. Angus and I are currently certified by the
California Narcotic Canine Association to work as a narcotic detector dog
and dog handler. Angus is the fourth narcotic detection dog that I have
handled since 1985.
Angus's alert behavior consists of perceptible physical reactions, which
include a heightened emotional state, and coming to a complete "sit" when
his physical position allows. Angus has completed a total of 187 hours of
training. Subsequent to his certification, Angus has alerted 57 times and
35 search warrants have been obtained based on his alerts. Angus alerts
on many occasions where the controlled substances are seized without a
warrant because a warrant is not required, either because consent to search
has already been obtained or consent is subsequently obtained.

I have successfully completed in excess of 300 hours of formal
training and extensive experience in controlled s~bstance~ investigati~ns,
particularly involving marijuana, methamphetamme, her01~, B:Dd ~e,
including the 80-hour Drug Enforcement Agency narcot1c mvest1gator
course. I am familiar with the manner in which illegal controlled substances
are packaged, marketed and consumed. I have received formal training and

Angus and I have been involved in training exercises where known
controlled substances, containers, or paraphernalia were hidden. Because





of the absorption of the odor, and the narcotics detector dog's inherently
keen sense of smell, the narcotic detector dog will continue to a lert on the
container or item depending on the length of exposure to the controlled
substance, the specific controlled substance, and ventilation of the item or

facilitate ilie investigation, then a portion of each controlled substance will
be retained for evidentiary purposes.

§ ll-6a

A commonly-held misunderstanding is that aJI currency in circulation is
contaminated with the residue of narcotics, causing drug detector dogs to
alert to currency. I am aware of research conducted by Dr. Kenneth Furton
of Florida International University and by other experts that has refuted
the rumors of widespread currency drug contamination. It has been my
experience as a narcotic detector canine expert, that a properly trained
narcotic detector canine will not alert to all currency. I have personally
witnessed numerous searches of parcels by trained narcotic detector
canines where no alert was given. The parcels later were discovered to
contain substantial sums of U.S. currency. It has been my experience that
the training of the dog regarding threshold amounts of narcotic odors
is the most relevant factor impacting alerts on currency. It has been
my experience the training must include the establishment of a lower
threshold of approximately one gram of odor or more to ensure the canine
is alerting to more than the minuscule contamination that may be present
on some currency. Some contamination of currency may occur through
normal handling. The dog must also be "proofed" from numerous odors,
including the odor of currency, on a regular basis to maintain consistency
of performance. Other odors subject to proofing include the odor of food,
plastic bags and wrap, tape, controlled substance adulterants and other
items. " Proofing" is a method used in training to ensure the canine alerts
only to the odors for which it is trained to alert. I am trained and experienced
in the method of proofing.

Given under my hand and dated iliis 24th day of October 20XX.

Steve A. Sloan

Subscribed and Sworn to before me this 24th day of October 20XX
Judge of the Superior Court
San Diego County

Based on my training and experience, I know that persons who possess
and trans port illegal controlled substances will commonly leave their
fingerprints on or within the item and will often have other described
documentation or effects which will bear evidence ofdominion and control.
Such evidence will be material in proving the identity of the owner of the
said contraband.
Based on the aforementioned information and investigation, I believe
the above described property will be recovered when this warrant is served
thus I believe the grounds for the issuance of a search warrant exist as set
forth in California Penal Code Section 1524.
I, the affiant, hereby pray a search warrant be issued for the seiz ure of
said property or any part thereof, from said parcel at any time of the day,
and the same be brought before this magistrate or retained subject to the
order oftl1is court, or if a controlled delivery to the intended recipient would

§ ll-6a


§ ll-6b


§ 11-6b. Sample Safe Search Warrant Affidavit



I, Investigator Scott Cooper, the Affiant herein, being of lawful age
and having been first duly swo~ upon oath, depos.e and state that I am
a commissioned police officer wtth the ~urora Po~tce D~partment and I
have probable cause to believe that there ts located m the ttem:
One (1) ~ 2'x2'x2'6" Diebold metal safe. A silver metal
plate with serial num~r "07-00 105~-~-0 1".is affixed to
the right side of the safe. An approXlDlately SIX (6) ~ch ~on~y/
mail slot is cut into the top of the safe. A black combinatt~n.dtal
and a silver metal handle on the door secures the safe. Thts ttem
is currently located at the Aurora Police Department Property
The following property is illegal to possess and would be material
evidence in a subsequent criminal prosecution:
Controlled substance namely marijuana; defined ~ C.R.S.
section 18-18-406. This controlled su~stance ~th su~h
vessels, implements, and furniture used ~ conn.ectton wtth
the manufacture, production, storage, or dts~ensmg of s~ch
drugs and articles of personal property tendmg to estabhsh
the identity of the person in control of .contraband ~el~ted
paraphernalia consisting in part and includmg, but not linuted
to rent receipts mail envelopes, photographs, and keys, as well
as' any U.S. C~rrency, and(?r paperwork as~o~iated wi~ the
sale or distribution of manJuana, located wtthm the Dtebold
safe identified herein are the items sought in the search.



§ ll-6b

The facts which give rise to this belief and which establish probable
cause to believe that grounds for the issuance of a search and seizure
warrant exist are as the following:
Qualifications for Investigator Scott Cooper and K-9 Zeke
Investigator Scott Cooper advises the Court that he has been employed
as a Police Officer since 1996, and has been assigned to the Aurora Police
Department, Investigations Bureau, Narcotics Section since August, 2000.
Investigator Cooper has experience conducting drug-related as well as other
types of criminal investigations. Investigator Cooper is also trained and
certified by the Aurora Police Department in microchemical presumptive
analyses of controlled substances. Investigator Cooper received 80
hours of narcotic investigations training from Rocky Mountain IDDTA
(High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area) in February, 2001. Investigator
Cooper received 40 hours of Clandestine Lab safety and operation from
the Drug Enforcement Administration at Quantico, Virginia, where
methamphetamine was produced, sampled for evidence, and cleaned up by
Investigator Cooper in July, 2001. Additionally, Investigator Cooper has
received investigative training from a number of local, state and federal
agencies. Investigator Cooper is familiar with many commonly abused
drugs, including cocaine, heroin, LSD, marijuana, ecstasy, GHB, PCP,
and methamphetamine; their appearance, methods of use, manufacturing,
distribution, packaging, and concealment; and slang tenns frequently
used to refer to these drugs and things closely related to their use and
K-9 Zeke is a Belgian Malinois dog trained to detect the odor of
controlled substances. K-9 Zeke was obtained from the Blanding, Utah,
Police Department on October 4, 200 l.
From October 8, 2001, through December 17,2001, K-9 Zeke received
three hundred sixty hours (360) of Basic Drug Detection training from
Investigator J. 0. Roe, a commissioned Police Officer with the City of
Aurora Police Department currently assigned to the Investigations Bureau,
Narcotics Section, K-9 Enforcement. This training included more than five
hundred (500) training searches on five (5) odors. K-9 Zeke was trained
to detect the odors of marijuana, methamphetamine, heroin, cocaine, and
On December 17, 2001, K-9 Zeke and Investigator Roe were tested
and certified by Adams County Sheriff Department Deputy J. Smith in
accordance with the performance requirements as set forth by the State
of Utah Peace Officer Standards and Training, Service Dog Program,
and the State School for Police Service Dog Handlers, in Stukenbrock,
Germany. Deputy J. Smith is certified to train and certify dogs, handlers



and instructors by the State of Utah Peace Officer Standards and Training
Service Dog Program.

through the State of Utah Peace Officer Standards and Training Service
Dog Program, and the School for Service Dog Hru1dlers in Stukenbrock,
West Germany) in accordance with the performance requirements as
set f~rth by the State of Utah Peace Officer ru1d Standards ru1d Training
Serv1co Dog Program ru1d the School Police Service Dog Hru1dlers in
Stukenbrock, Germany.

§ IHb

From May 4, 1984, to the present, Investigator J. Roe has received
more than two thousand three hundred (2,300) hours in the handling and
training of police dogs, including patrol dogs, explosive detection dogs,
and narcotic detection dogs.
From August 20, 2001, to September 28, 2001, Investigator Roe served
as an Adjunct Instructor at the State of Utah, Department of Public Safety,
Peace Officer and Standards and Training, Service Dog Program. On
September 28, 200 I, Investigator Roe was certified as an Adjunct Detector
Dog Judge. Investigator Roe can train and certify service dog handlers,
dogs, and instructors through the State of Utah Peace Officer Stru1dards and
Training Service Dog Program, ru1d the School for Service Dog Handlers
in Stukeobrock, West Germany.
From December 17, 2001, to February 6, 2002, InvestigatorS. Smith, a
commissioned Police Officer with the City of Aurora Police Department,
currently assigned to the Narcotics Section, and K-9 Zeke received two
hundred eighty (280) hours of training from Investigator Roe. On February
26, 2002, Investigator Bell and K-9 Zeke were certified by Deputy Lukens
and Investigator Roe in accordance with the performance requirements as
set forth by the State of Utah Peace Officer and Standards and Training
Service Dog Program, and the School Police Service Dog Handlers in
Stukenbrock, Germany.
K-9 Zeke has assisted the Aurora Police Department, Metro Gang Task
Force, Front Range Task Force, Denver Police Department, Department
of Corrections, and the West Metro Drug Task Force with K-9 sniffs
including, but not limited to, vehicle searches, locker searches, residential
searches, and business searches. Illegal controlled substances have been
recovered as a result of K-9 Zeke's alerts and indications. ln some of
these K-9 sniffs by K-9 Zeke, when K-9 Zeke did not alert or show any
interest in items, the places were still searched by hand by officers and no
controlled substances were found.
On September 15, 2003, Investigator Scott Cooper was assigned K-9
Zeke. From September 15, 2003, to November 19, 2003, Investigator
Cooper and K-9 Zeke received two hundred seventy (270) hours of training
from Investigator Roe. Investigator Cooper ru1d K-9 Zeke conducted over
four hundred (400) training exercises during this time period.
On November 19, 2003, Investigator Cooper and K-9 Zeke were
certified by Deputy Smith, Investigator Roe, ru1d Techniciru1 J. Meyer with
the Denver Police Department (who is certified as an Detector Dog Judge

§ ll-6b

Investigator Cooper conducts the maintenru1ce training for K-9 Zeke.
Investigator Cooper maintains ongoing records of K-9 Zeke's training,
activity, and medical logs.
On June 7, 20XX at approximately 2217 hours Aurora Police Officers
responded to a shooting call at 321 South Rinty Street. 321 S. Rinty St. is
located in the City of Aurora, County of Arapahoe, ru1d State of Colorado.
One of the officers that responded was Officer Jones, a commissioned
Police Officer with the City of Aurora. Upon arrival Officer Jones and the
other officers found a male, later identified as John DOE that had a grazing
gunshot wound to the right, rear side of his head. It appeared as if the
bullet did not penetrate Doe's sk"1111 but just lacerated the skin on his scalp.
Doe was conscious ru1d alert and told Officer Jones the following:
That on June 7, 20XX he arrived at 321 S. Rinty St. where he lives in
tile basement of his mother's home.
That as he was getting out of his car he was ambushed by two
unknown black males.
That one of the males had a hru1dgun and forced him into the house
and down into the basement.
That the males were asking him where the guns and money were.
That he showed them where
downstairs living room.


SKS style assault rifle was in the

- That the males forced him into his bedroom in the basement.
That ti1e male with the hru1dgun forced him onto the bed face down.
That the other male searched the bedroom ru1d found Doe's .40
caliber handgun that he keeps in the drawer of the night stru1d.
That the male that was sitting on top of him ru1d holding the handgun
to the back of his head asked him where the safe was.




- That he told the males he did not have a safe until one of the males
found the safe that was sitting on the floor in the walk-in clos~t.
- That the male on top of him hit him in the back of the bead with the
handgun and requested the combination.
- That be refused to give the combination to the males and a struggle
- That during the fight with the two males one of the males bit him on
the back.
- That the male with the handgun pressed the gun to the back of his
head and he was sure he was going to be shot.
That be grabbed the gun, which deflected the barrel as a shot went
That he felt the bullet graze the right side of his head.
Doe gave verbal consent to search the basement apartment. However,
Doe refused to consent to a search of the safe that was in the closet.
Other officers searched the basement part of the home and found drug
paraphemalia. Officers became suspicious that drugs might have motivated
this robbery.
Your Affiant was called to and responded to 321 S. Rinty St. with
my assigned drug dog, K-9 Zeke. Your Affiant deployed K-9 Zeke in
the basement area, basement bedroom and closet. K-9 Zeke alerted then
indicated by scratching the front of the safe that was sitting on the floor of
the basement closet indicating that the odor of a controlled substance was
present. Scratching' and biting is the final response that K-9 is trained to
give when he locates the odor of a controlled substance.
When Doe was told of K-9 Zeke's action, Doe stated be knew what
that meant and admitted that there was 1Y2 pounds of marijuana in the safe
and two thousand some dollars in U.S. currency in the safe. Doe provided
the combination to the safe so we would not damage the safe if a search
warrant was obtained. Doe still did not consent to a search of the safe,
despite admitting that it contained illegal drugs and cash proceeds from
the sale of illegal drugs.


in the Diebold safe based on the K-9 alert. Your Affiant told Doe tlmt he
was not in custody, that he would not be arrested on this date and did not
have to speak with Your Affiant. Doe stated he understood and then told
me that there was I Y2 to 2 pounds of "kind bud" and two thousand some
dollars in the safe. Your Affiant knows "kind bud" is a common slang
term for high quality marijuana that sells for approximately four hundred
dollars ($400.00) per ounce and up to four thousand, five hundred dollars
($4,500.00) per pound. Your Affiant asked Doe if the safe was his and all
the items inside and he replied "yes."
Your Affiant has personally observed the above-described safe at the
Aurora Police Department Property Section. Based on the aforementioned
facts and circumstances, your Affiant believes there is probable cause for
tl1e crin1e(s) of possession, sale, distribution, manufacturing, and delivery
of Marijuana, contrary to C.R.S. 18-18-204 and 18-18-406.
Application is hereby made for issuance of a search warrant, directed
to any officer authorized by law to execute warrants in the county wherein
said property is located, commanding said officer to search forthwith the
person or place named above for said property, and the said property and
every part thereof, to take, remove, and seize using such force as may
reasonably be required in the execution of the warrant, and directing that
return thereof be made to the judge issuing the warrant.
The Affiant has read the above and foregoing application and affidavit,
and tbe statements therein contained are true to the best of his/her
knowledge, information, and belief.


SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this - - - - day of
_ _ __ _ _ _____, A.D., 20XX.

The tan Diebold safe was seized and removed from 321 S. R..inty St.
and transported to the Aurora Police Evidence room by Your Affiant. Your
Affiant went to the hospital and contacted Doe in the emergency room.
Your Affiant stated to Doe that l had reason to believe there were drugs

§ ll-6b


§ 11- 7

§ 11-7.


Bibliography and Advanced Readings

The following readings were selected from a variety of sources,
representing training disciplines, scientific research and legal reasoning.
No effort has been made to select readings or resource material representing
a particular viewpoint. Rather, readings were selected a broad scope and
breadth of information pertaining detector dogs.
Bodnar, R. J. K-9 Dogs in Jail, American Correctional Association Ja il
Operations Bulletin, Vol. VI No 5, 1995, 1-6.


§ 11- 7

Hunt, R. ( 1999). The Benefits of Scent Evidence. FBI Law Enforcement
Bulletin, 68, p.15-18.
Hutson, H., Anglin, D., Pineda, G., Flyrm, C., Russell, M.,& McKeith,
J. (1997). Law Enforcement K-9 Dog Bites: Injuries, Complications and
Trends. Annals of Emergency Medicine, 29 (5), 637-642.
l.A.C.P. (2001). Law Enforcement Canines Concepts and Issues Paper.
Washington: lACP National Law Enforcement Policy Center.

Bodnar, R. J. K-9 Patrols - Physical & Psychological Deterrence,
American Jails, July/Aug 1990, 35-38.

Katz, S. & Midkiff, C. (1998). Unconfirmed Canine Accelerant
Detection: a Reliability Issue in Court. Journal of Forensic Science, 43
(2), 329-333.

Bryson, S. (2000). Police Dog Tactics. New York, N.Y.: The McGrawHill Companies.

MacKenzie, S. (2000). Decoys and Aggression: a Police Canine Training
Manual. Calgary, Alberta: Detselig Enterprises, Ltd.

Chapman, S. (1990). Police Dogs in North America. Springfield, 11.:
Charles C Thomas Publisher.

Mesloh, C. (2003). An Examination of Police Canine Use of Force In
the State of Florida. Doctoral dissertation, University of Central Florida,
Orlando, Florida.

Coren, S. (1994). How Dogs Think: Understanding the Canine Mind.
New York, N.Y.: Free Press.
Eden, R. ( 1993). K-9 Officer's Manual. Bellingham, Wa: Temeron
Books, Inc.
Furton, K .. , Hsu, Y.-L., Luo, T., Wang, J. and Rose, S. (1997). Odor
Signature ofCocaineAnalyzed by Gas Chromatography/Mass Spectromctry
and Threshold Levels of Detection for Drug Detection Canines. Forensic
Science, Proceedings of the International Association of Forensic Science,
14(2) 329-332.
Furton, K. Field and Laboratory Comparison of the Sensitivity and
Reliability of Cocaine Detection on Currency Using Chemical Sensors,
Humans, K-9s and SPME/GC/MS/MS Analysis, in Investigation and
Forensic Science Technologies, 41, 42. K. Higgins, ed., 1999.
Furton, K. Novel Sample Preparation Methods and Field Testing
Procedures Used to Determine the Chemical Basis of Cocaine Detection
by Canines, in Forensic Evidence Analysis and Crime Scene Investigation,
56, 58. J. Hicks, eta/. eds., 1997.
Hargreaves, G. (1996). Detection Dog Lineup. FBI Law Enforcement
Bulletin, 65, 14-16.


Mesloh, C., Wolf, R., Henych, M. (2002). Scent as Forensic Evidence
and Its Relationship to the Law Enforcement Canine. Journal of Forensic
Identification, 52 (2) 169-182.
Mesloh, C., Henych, M., & Wolf, R. (2002). Sniff Test: Utilization of
the Law Enforcement Canine in the Seizure of Paper Currency. Journa l of
Forensic Identification, 52, (6) 704-724.
Overall, K. ( 1997). Clinical Behavioral Medicine for Small Animals.
St. Louis, Mo: Mosby.
Pineda, G., Hutson, H., Anglin, D., Flynn, C., & Russell, M. (1996).
Manag ing Law Enforcement (K-9) Dog Bites in the Emergency
Department. Academic Emergency Medicine, 3, (4), 352-358.
Rebmarm, A., David, E. & Sorg, M. (2000). Cadaver Dog Handbook:
Forensic Training and Tactics for the Recovery of Human Remains. New
York, N.Y.: CRC Press.
Schoon, A. (2003). K9 Suspect Discrimination. Calgary: Detselig
Enterprises, Ltd.
Sloan, S.A. (1996). Demystifying the Abilities of Narcotic K9s. Law
Enforcement Quarterly. Nov. 1995-Jan. 1996, 13-I4.


§ 11- 7



Stark, C. ( 1998). A Dog is Not a Gun: Observations on Canine Policing.
Calgary, Canada: Detselig Enterprises, Ltd.

Ala bama
Syrotuck, W. ( 1977). Scent and the Scenting Dog (Jnl ed.). New York,
N.Y.: Barkleigh Productions.
Wallentine, K.R. (2007) . Street Legal: A Guide to Pre-trial Crim inal
Procedure for Prosecutors, Defenders and Police. Chicago, II.: American
Bar Association Publications.
Wallentine, K.R. (2005). Criminal Procedure: The Street Cop's Guide.
Salt Lake City, Ut.: Aspen Press.

Hodge v. State, 13 So. 3 85 (Ala. 1893)- §7- 1
Ho lcombe v. State, 437 So. 2d 663 (Ala. Crim . App. 1983) - §7-1
State v. Montgomery, 968 So.2d 543, 551 (Ala. Crim. App. 2006) - §7-3

Carson v. State, 736 P.2d 356 (Alaska App), cert. denied, 742 P.2d 782 (Alaska
1987) - §3- 1
McGahan v. State, 807 P.2d 506, 51 0-11 (Alaska App. I 991) - §4- I 3
Wilkie v. State, 7 15 P.2d I 199 (Alaska App. 1986) - §§7- 1, 7-2

State v. Bailey, 586 P.2d 648, 649-50 (Az. App. I978) - §8-2
State v. Box, 73 P.3d 623, 630 (Ariz. App. 2003) - §4-5
State v. Quatsling, 536 P.2d 226, 229 (Ariz. App. 1975), cert. denied sub nom
Quatsling v. Arizona., 424 U.S. 945 (1 976) - §6-4
State v. Roscoe, 700 P.2d 13 12, 1320 (Ariz. 1984), cert. denied, 47 I U.S. 1094
(1985) - §7-4
State v. Roscoe, 700 P.2d 13 12 (Ariz. 1984), appeal after retrial, 910 P.2d 63 5
(Ariz. 1996) - §7- 1

Dowty v. State, 210 S. W.3d 850, 858 (Ark. 2005)- §4-8
Farm Bureau Mut.lns. Co. v. Foote, 14 S.W.3d 5 12,5 19 (Ark. 2000) - §5-3
Omar v. State, - S. W.3d - -, 2007 WL 266022 1 (Ark. App. 2008) - §4-5
Rolen v. State, 89 S.W.2d 6 14 (Ark. 1936) - §7- 1
Treece v. City of Little Rock, 923 F. Supp. 1122, 1128 (E.D. Ark.
1996) - §9-6

Andrade v. City of Burlingame, 847 F.Supp. 760, 762 (N.D. Cal. 1994) §3-11
In re KeUy G., 2003 WL 2 1958295 (Cal. App. 5th Dist. 2003) - §4-1 I
Marquez v. City of A lbuquerque, 399 F. 3d 12 I 6 ( IOth Cir. 2005) - §3- I
People v. Dickinson, 163 Cal. Rptr. 575, 577-79 (Cal. App. 1980) - §8-2
People v. Furman, 106 Cal.Rptr. 366, 368 (Cal. App. 1973) - Chapter I
People v. Gonzales, 267 Ca l. Rptr. 138, 145 (Cal. App. 5th Dist. 1990) - §7-3
People v. Mitchell, 2 Cal.Rptr.3d 49, 66 (Cal . App. 2nd Dist. 2003) - §7-4
People v. Perez, 59 Cal.Rptr.2d 596, 599 (Cal. App. 1996) - §8-1
People v. Perez, 59 Cal.Rptr.2d 596 (Cal. App. I996) - §8- I
People v. WiiJis, 9 Cal.Rptr.3d 235, 24 1 (Cal. App. 2nd Dist. 2004) - §7-4
People v. Willis, 9 Cal. Rptr. 3d 235 (Cal. App. 2nd Dist. 2004) - §7- 1
People v. Wilson, 182 Cal. App. 3d 742,752 (1 986) - §10-1


19 1



Sanders v. City of Fresno, 551 F.Supp.2d 1149, 1181 (E.D. Cal. 2008)§3-12
Thompson v. County of Los Angeles, 47 Cal.Rptr.Jd 702, 709 (Cal. App. 2nd
Dist. 2006)- §3-5

Brooks v. People, 975 P.2d II 05, 1111 (Colo. 1999) -

§§5-3, 7-1. 7-2, 7-3

Carey v. Cassista, 939 F.Supp. 136, 143 (D. Conn. 1996) - §3-4
State v. Esposito, 670 A.2d 30 I (Conn. 1996)- §7- 1
State v. Ryder, 2006 WL 1230414 (Conn. Super. 2006)- §7-6
State v. St. John, 919 A.2d 452, 460 (Conn. 2007) - §7-2
Cook v. State, 374 A.2d 264 (Del. 1977) - §7-1
District of Columbia
Frye v. United States, 293 F. 1013 (D.C. Cir. 1923)- §5-3
Kinney v. District of Columbia, 994 F.2d 6, 12 (D.C. Cir. 1993)- §9-5
Levering v. District of Columbia, 869 F. Supp. 24, 28 (D.D.C. 1994)- §9-3
Levering v. District of Columbia, 869 F.Supp. 24,30 (D.D.C. 1994)- §9-2
Levering v. District of Columbia, 2007 WL 956937 (D. D.C. 2007)- §9-2
Olaniyi v. District of Columbia, 416 F.Supp.2d 43, 60 (D.D.C. 2006)- §6-5
Oliver v. United States, 656 A.2d 1159, 1167 (D.C. 1995)- §7-6
Phelan v. City of Mount Rainier, 805 A.2d 930, 940 (D.C. 2002) - §3-12
United States v. Colyer, 878 F.2d 469, 475 (D.C.Cir. 1989)- §§4-9, 4- 15
United States v. Tartaglia, 864, 841 F.2d 837 (D.C. Cir. 1989)- §4-9
United States v Trayer, 898 F.2d 805, 809 (D.C. Cir.), cert. denied, 498 U.S.
839 (1990)- §4-9
Adair v. Charter County of Wayne, 452 F.Jd 482, 490 (6th Cir. 2006)- §9-1
Adams v. United States, 350 F.Jd 1216, 1221 (Fed. Cir. 2003)- §9-5
Adams v. United States, 471 F.Jd 1321, 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2006)- §9-4
Aiken v. City of Memphis, 190 F.Jd 753, 758 (6th Cir. 1999), cert. denied, 528
u.s. 1157 (2000)- §9-3
Alden v. Maine, 527 U.S. 706, 711 ( 1999)- §9-1
Almeida-Sanchez v. United States, 413 U.S. 266, 272-73 (1973)- §6-2
Anderson v. Creighton, 483 U.S. 635, 638 (1987)- §3
Anderson v. Mt. Clement Pottery Co., 328 U.S. 680, 692 ( 1946)- §9-3
Barney v. Pulsipher, 143 F.Jd 1299, 1307 (l Oth Cir. 1999) - §3-12
Barrentine v. Arkansas-Best Freight System,lnc., 450 U.S. 728, 740 (1981)§9-6

B.C. v. Plumas Unified School District, 192 F.3d 1260, 1266 (9th Cir. 1999) §§4-4, 4-11
Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 559 ( 1979)- §3-3
Birdwell v. City of Gadsden, 970 F.2d 802, 809-10 ( II th Cir. 1992) _ §9-4
Bobo v. United States, 136 F.Jd 1465, 1468 (Fed. Cir. 1998)- §9-3
Bond v. United States, 529 U.S. 334, 338 (2000)- §2- 1
Bond v. United States, 529 U.S. 334, 339 (2000)- §4-9
Brewer v. City of Napa, 210 F.Jd I 093 (9th Cir. 2000)- §3-1
Brewer v. City of Napa, 210 F.Jd I 093, 1094-95 (9th Cir. 2000)- §3-6
Brigham City v. Stuart, 547 U.S. 398, 405 (2006)- §§2-4 7-6
Brock v. City of Cincinnati, 236 F.Jd 793, 806 (6th Cir. 2001) _ §9-6
Brower v. County of lnyo, 489 U.S. 593, 597 (1989)- §2-5
California v. Carney, 471 U.S. 386, 392 ( 1985) - §2-4
California v. Greenwood, 486 U.S. 35, 40-41 (1988)- §2-3
California v. Hodari D., 499 U.S. 621,624 (1991)- §§2-3 2-5
Camara v. Municipal Court of the City and County of San Francisco 387 us
523,538(1967) - §5-2
Cardona v. Connolly, 361 F.Supp.2d 25, 33 (D. Conn. 2005)- §2-5
Carroll v. United States, 267 U.S. 132, 156 (1925)- §2-4
Cassidy v. Chertoff, 471 F.Jd 67, 82 (2nd Cir. 2006)- §6-5
Chandler v. Miller, 520 U.S. 305, 314 ( 1997) - §6-5
Chavez v. Illinois State Police, 251 F. 3d 612, 615 (7th Cir. 2001) _ §3-12
Chime! v. California, 395 U.S. 752, 762 (1969)- §2-4
C~sler v. City of.West Covina; 165 F. 3d 915 (9th Cir. 1998) - §3-1
CtttZens for Peace m Space v. City of Colorado Springs, 477 F.3d 1212 1218
(lOth Cir. 2007)- §6-3
City of Canton v. Harris, 489 U.S. 378, 385 (1989)- §3-12
City of Indianapolis v. Edmond, 53 1 U.S. 32, 41 (2000) _ §8-1
C!ty of Indianapolis v. Edmond, 53 1 U.S. 32 (2000)- §4-7
Ctty ofNewport v. Fact Concerts, Inc., 453 U.S. 247,267 ( 1981) - §9-5
Collins v. Harker Heights, 503 U.S. 115, 128 (1992)- §2-5
Colorado v. Bertine, 479 U.S. 367,375-76 ( 1987) - §4-6
Colorado v. Bertine, 479 U.S. 367, 375 (1987)- §2-4
County of Sacramento v. Lewis, 523 U.S. 833, 840, 846 (1998)- §3- 10
County of Sacramento v. Lewis, 523 U.S. 833 (1998)- §2-5
Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc, 509 U.S. 579 (2003)- §5-3
Deorle v. Rutherford, 272 F.3d 1272, 1283 (9th Cir. 2001) - §3-6
Doe v. Renfrow, 63 1 F.2d 91, 92 (7th Cir. 1980), cert. denied, 451 U.S. 1022
Dunigan v. Noble, 390 F.Jd 486 (6th Cir.2004) §3-l
Fikes v. Cleghorn, 47 F. 3d I0 II (9th Cir. 1995) - §3-1
Fikes v. Cleghorn, 47 F.Jd 1011, 1014 (9th Cir. 1995)- §3-7
Florida v. Riley, 488 U.S. 445, 45 1 (1989)- §2-3
Florida v. Wells, 495 U.S. I (1990)- §2-4
Garcia v. San Antonio Metropolitan Transit Authority, 469 U.S. 528 (1985) _





Georgia v. Randolph, 547 U.S. I 03, 114 (2006)- §2-4
Gilliam v. County of Los Angeles, 37 F. 3d 1505 (9th Cir. 1994)- §3; 1
Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 396 (1989)- §§2-5, 3-3
Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. at 396-97- §2-5
Gregory-Bey v. Hanks, 332 F.3d 1036, 1045 (7th Cir,), cert. denied, 540 U.S.
1052 (2003) - §7-5
Grey v. City of Oak Grove, 396 F.3d I 031, I 032 (8th Cir. 2005)- §9-1
Griffln v. Wisconsin, 483 U.S. 868, 877 ( 1987)- §5-2
Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818 ( 1982)- §3
Hester v. United States, 265 U.S. 57, 59 (1924)- §7-6
Holzapfel v. Town ofNewburgh, 145 F.3d 516, 528 (2nd Cir.), cert. denied,
525 U.S. I 055 ( 1998)- §9-2
Horton v. California, 496 U.S. 128, 137 (1990)- §2-3
Horton v. Goose Creek Independent School District, 690 F.2d 470, 475 (5th
Cir. 1982), cert. denied, 463 U.S. 1207 (1983)- §§4-4, 4-11
Horton v. Goose Creek Independent School District, 690 F.2d 470, 479 (5th
Cir.l982) - §4-11
Hudson v. McMillian, 503 U.S. I, 7 (1992)- §2-5
Hudson v. McMillian, 503 U.S. I, 8-9 (1992)- §§3-8, 3-1 0
Hudson v. McMillian, 503 U.S. at 10, 11- §2-5
lllinois v. Caballes, 543 U.S. 405, 409 (2005)- §§4-1 , 4-3, 4-5
Illinois v. Caballes, 543 U.S. 405 (2005)- §4-15
Illinois v. Caballes, 543 U.S. at 407- §4-5
lllinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213, 231 (1983)- §2-2
Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 2 13, 232 (1983)- §2-2
Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213,238 (1983)- §4-3
Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213,243 (1983)- §4-5
Illinois v. Rodriguez, 497 U.S. 177, 187 (1990)- §2-4
lllinois v. Wardlow, 528 U.S. 119, 123 (2000) - §3-4
Indianapolis v. Edmond, 531 U.S. 32, 44 (2000)- §6-5
Jarrett v. Town of Yarmouth, 331 F.3d 140 (1st Cir.), cert. denied, 540 U.S.
1017 (2003)-§3 -1
Joiner v. City of Macon, 814 F.2d 1537, 1539 (lith Cir. 1987)- §9-5
Kaniff v. United States, 351 F.3d 780, 782 (7th Cir. 2003)- §4-4
Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347, 356-57 (1967)- §2- 1
Kerr v. City"of West Palm Beach, 875 F.2d 1546, 1551 (lith Cir. 1989)§3-2
Knowles v. Iowa, 525 U.S. 113, 114 ( 1998) - §2-4
Kuha v. City of Minnetonka, 365 F.3d 590 (8th Cir. 2003)- §3-1
Kuba v. City of Minnetonka, 365 F.3d 590, 598 (8th Cir. 2003), overruled on
other grounds, Szabla v. City ofBrook1yn Park, 486 F.3d 385 (8th Cir.
2007)- §3-6
Kuha v. City of Minnetonka, 365 F.3d 590, 600 (8th Cir. 2003)- §3-2
Kuha v. City of Minnetonka, 365 F.3d at 599- §3-6
Kyllo v. United States, 533 U.S. 27,29 (2001)- §4-15
Kyllo v. United States, 533 U.S. 27, 34-35 (2001)- §2-3

La favors v. Jenne, 2006 WL 249544 (lith Cir. 2006) - §3-4
Lamon v. City of Shawnee, 972 F.2d 1145, 1151 (lOth Cir. 1992) - §9- 1
Lee v. City of New Orleans, 156 Fed.Appx. 618 (5th Cir. 2005) - §9-1
Leever v. Carson City, 360 F.3d 1014, 1018 (9th Cir. 2004) - §9-6
Mac Wade v. Kelly, 460 F.3d 260, 266, 271 (2nd Cir. 2006)- §6-5
Marquez v. Andrade, 79 F.3d 1153 (9th Cir. 1996)- §3-11
Marquez v. City ofAlbuquerque, 399 F.3d 1216 ( lOth Cir. 2005)- §3-1
Marshall v. Barlbw's, Inc., 436 U.S. 307,320 (1978)- §5-2
Martineau v. City of Cypress, 95 F.3d 1158 (9th Cir. 1996)- §3-7
Martineau v. City of Cypress, 95 F.3d 1158 (9th Cir. 1996), cert. denied, 520
u.s. 1128 ( 1997) - §3-1
Maryland v. Buie, 494 U.S. 325, 334 ( 1990)- §2-4
Maryland v. Dyson, 527 U.S. 465, 467 (1999)- §2-4
Maryland v. Wilson, 5 19 U.S. 408,4 15 ( 1997) - §2-4
Matthews v. Jones, 35 F. 3d 1046 (6th Cir. 1994)- §3-1
Matthews v. Jones, 35 F.3d 1046, 1047 (6th Cir. 1994)- §3-5
Matthews v. Jones, 35 F.3d I 046, 1051 (6th Cir. 1994) - §3-6
McLaughlin v. Richland Shoe Co., 486 U.S. 128, 133 ( 1988)- §9-1
Mendoza v. Block, 27 F.3d 1357, 1358 (9th Cir. 1994) - §3-6
Mendoza v. Block, 27 F.3d 1357, 1362-63 (9th Cir. 1994)- §3-4
Merrett v. Moore, 58 F.3d 1547, 1550-51 (lith Cir. 1995), cert. denied, 519
u.s. 812 (1996) - §4-7
Michigan v. Clifford, 464 U.S. 287,292 (1984)- §5- 1
Michigan v. Long, 463 U.S. 1032, 1049 ( 1983)- §2-4
Michigan v. Tyler, 436 U.S. 499, 511 ( 1978)- §5- 1
Mickle v. Ahmed, 444 F.Supp.2d 601, 61 1 (D.S.C. 2006)- §3- I
MiUer v. Clark County, 340 F.3d 959 (9th Cir. 2003) - §§3- 1, 3-7
Miller v. Clark County, 340 F.3d 959, 961 (9th Cir. 2003)- §3-6
MiUer v. Clark County, 340 F.3d 959, 963 (9th Cir. 2003)- §3-1
Miller v. Clark County, 340 F.3d 959, 965-66 (9th Cir. 2003)- §3-4
Miller v. Clark County, 340 F.3d 959, 968 (9th Cir. 2003) - §3-2
Miller v. Clark County, 340 F.3d at 967 - §3-7
Minnesota v. Carter, 525 U.S. 83, 88 (1998) - §2-1
Minnesota v. Dickerson, 508 U.S. 366, 375 (1993) - §§2-3, 2-4
Monell v. Department of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658, 690-9 1 (1978) §3-10
Monell v. Department of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658,694 n. 58 (1978)§3-12
Monroev.Pape,365U.S.l67, 180 ( 1961)-§3- 10
Moore v. Vangelo, 222 Fed.Appx. 167, 169 n. 2 (3rd Cir. 2007)- §3-6
Morgan v. United States, 166 Fed.Appx. 292, 295 (9th Cir. 2006)- §6-3
National League of Cities v. Usery, 426 U.S. 833 (1976) - §9
National Treasury Employees Union v. Van Raab, 489 U.S. 656, 706 ( 1989)§6-5
Neil v. Biggers, 409 U.S. 188, 198 (1972)- §7-5
New York v. Belton, 453 U.S. 454,460-61 (1981)- §2-4




Oliver v. United States, 466 U.S. 170, 179 (1984)- §2-3
Oliver v. United States, 466 U.S. 170, 180 (1984)- §7-6
Ornelas v. United States, 517 U.S. 690, 695 (1996)- §2-2
Parra v. City of Chino, 141 F.3d 1178 (9th Cir. 1998)- §§3-1, 3-7
Payne v. Pauley, 337 F.3d 767,778 (7th Cir. 2003)- §2-5
Pennsylvania v. Mimms, 434 U.S. 106, 111 (1977)- §2-4
Quintanilla v. City of Downey, 84 F.3d 353 (9th Cir. 1996)- §§3-1, 3-7
Rakas v. Illinois, 439 U.S. 128, 148 (1978)- §2-4
Reich v. New York City Transit Authority, 45 F.3d 646 (2nd Cir. 1995)§§9-2, 9-3
Renfro v. City of Emporia, 948 F.2d 1528, 1537 (lOth Cir. 1991), cert. dismissed, 503 U.S. 915 (1992)- §9-4
Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362,371 (1976)- §3-12
Roberts v. City of Shreveport, 397 F.3d 287, 294 (5th Cir. 2005)- §3-12
Robinette v. Barnes, 854 F.2d 909 (6th Cir. 1988)- §3-1
Rogers v. City of Kennewick, 206 Fed.Appx. 657 (9th Cir. 2006), cert. denied,
,127 S.Ct. 1126 (2007)- §3-6
Rom~Champion, 46 F.3d 1013, 1018 (lOth Cir.), cert. denied, 516 U.S. 947
(1995)- §§4-4, 4-5
Rumfelt v. United States, 445 F. 2d 134 (7th Cir. 1971)- §7-1
Sacramento v. Lewis, 523 U.S. at 851- §2-5
Samson v. California, 547 U.S. 843, 857 (2006)- §2-4
Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194,202 (2001)- §3
Scott v. Harris,- U.S.-, 127 S.Ct. 1769, 1774 (2007)- §3
Sebu1sky v. City of Riverside, 46 F.3d 1145 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 516 U.S.
944 (1995}- §3-2
Seminole Tribe of Florida v. Florida, 5 17 U.S. 44 ( 1996) - §9-1
Shannon v. City of Costa Mesa, 46 F.3d 1145 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 516 U.S.
822 (1995) - §3-5
Smith v. City of Hemet, 394 F.3d 689 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 545 U.S. 1128,
(2005)- §3-1
Smith v. City of Hemet, 394 F.3d at 705,707- §3-1
Smoak v. Hall, 460 F. 3d 768, 783 (6th Cir. 2006)- §3-3
Sorchini v. City of Covina, 8 Fed.Appx. 806 (9th Cir. 2001)- §3-6
South Dakota v. Opperman, 428 U.S. 364, 368 ( 1976)- §§2-4, 4-6
Starkes v. United States, 427 A.2d 437 (D.C. App. 1981)- §7-1
States v. Rivas, 157 F.3d 364,368 (5th Cir. 1998)- §4-2
State v. DeMarco, 952 P.2d 1276, 1286 (Kan. 1998)- §4-5
State v. Pellicci, 580.A.2d 710,715-17 (1990)- §4-5
Steiner v. Mitchell, 350 U.S. 247,253 (1956)- §9-3
Stovall v. Denno, 388 U.S. 293 (1967)- §7-5
Szabla v. City of Brooklyn Park, 486 F.3d at 397- §3-6
Tanberg v. Sholtis, 401 F. 3d 1151, 1164-65 (1Oth Cir. 2005) - §3-1 0
Tapley v. Collins, 211 F.3d 1210, 1214 (11th Cir. 2000)- §3
Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1 (1985)- §§2-5, 3-1
Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 27 (1968) §2-2


Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 30 (1968)- §2-4
Texas v. Brown, 460 U.S. 730, 741 (1983)- §2-2
Thornton v. United States, 541 U.S. 615, 620 (2004)- §2-4
Traver v. Meshiry, 627 F.2d 934,938 (9th Cir. 1980)- §3-10
Travis v. Gary Community Mental Health Center, Inc., 921 F.2d 108 (7th Cir.
1990), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 812 (1991}- §9-5
United States v. $22,474.00,246 F.3d 1212 (9th Cir. 2001)- §4-14
United States v. $30,670.00,403 F.3d448, 459 (7th Cir. 2005)- §4-14
United States v. $242,484.00,389 F.3d 1149, 1165 n. 9 (11th Cir. 2004)§4-14
United States v. $404,905.00 U.S. Currency, 182 F.3d 643,647 (8th Cir. 1999),
cert. denied sub nom Alexander v. United States, 528 U.S. 1161 (2000)
United States v. Abbouchi, 502 F.3d 850, 855-56 (9th Cir. 2007)- §6-2
United States v. Alexander, 448 F.3d 1014, 1017 (8th Cir. 2006)- §4-5
United States v. Alfonso, 759 F.2d 728, 734 (9th Cir. 1985) - §6-2
United States v. Alfonso, 759 F.2d 728, 738 (9th Cir. 1985}- §4-10
United States v. Banks, 3 F. 3d 399,402 (11th Cir. 1993), cert. denied, 510
u.s. 1129 (1994)- §4-12
United States v. Barragan, 379 F.3d 524, 529 (8th Cir. 2004)- §4-5
United States v. Bloomfield, 40 F. 3d 910, 917 (8th Cir. 1994} - §4-5
United States v, Borys, 766 F.2d 304, 313 (7th Cir.)- §4-5
United States v. Boxley, 373 F.3d 759, 761 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 543 U.S.
972 (2004)- §§4-3, 4-16
United States v. Brown, 500 F.3d 48,57 n. 3 (1st Cir. 2007)- §4-3
United States v. Bulacan, 156 F.3d 963, 966-67 (9th Cir. 1998)- §6-3
United States v. Cardona, 769 F.2d 625,629 (9th Cir. 1985)- §6-2
United States v. Carroll, 710 F.2d 164 (4th Cir. 1983)- §7-1
United States v. Castro, 166 F.3d 728,734 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 528 U.S.
887 (1999)- §4-6
United States v. Cedano-Arellano, 332 F.3d 568, 571 (9th Cir. 2003), cert.
denied, 540 U.S. 1137 (2004)- §§4-2, 4-3,4-16
United States v. Cofield, 254 Fed.Appx. 971 (4th Cir. 2007)- §7-1
United States v. Corona-Ramirez, 125 Fed.Appx. 78, 80 (8th Cir. 2005)§4-5
United States v. Currency, U.S. $42,500.00,283 F.3d 977,982 (9th Cir.
2002)§- §4-14
United States v. Daniel, 982 F.2d 146, 150 n. 5 (5th Cir. 1993)- §4-12
United States v. Demoss, 279 F.3d 632, 646-3 7 (8th Cir. 2002)- §4-12, 68
United States v. Dennis, 115 F.3d 524, 527 (7th Cir. 1997)- §4-12
United States v. Dennis, 115 F.3d at 533 - §4-12
United States v. Diaz, 25 F.3d 392,394 (6th Cir. 1994)- §4-3, 4-8,4-16
United States v. Donnelly, 475 F.3d 946, 951,954 (8th Cir. 2007)- §4-5
United States v. Donnelly, 475 F.3d 946, 955 (8th Cir.), cert. denied,_ U.S.
---J 127 S.Ct. 2954 (2007)- §4-3
United States v. Douglas, 195 Fed.Appx. 780, 781 (1Oth Cir. 2006)- §4-5


United States v. Drayton, 536 U.S. 194, 206-07 (2002) - §2-4
United States v. Duncan, 693 F.2d 971, 977 (9th Cir. 1982) -;: §6-2
United States v. Dunkel, 900 F.2d 105, 107 (7th Cir.l990), vacated on oUter
grounds, 498 U.S. 1043 (1991) - §4-8
United States v. Dunn, 480 U.S. 294,301 (1987)- §7-6
United States v. Edwards, 415 U.S. 800, 808 (1974)- §2-4
United States v. Fernandez, 772 F.2d 495, 496 (9th Cir. 1985) - §4-2
United States v. Flores-Montano, 541 U.S. 149, 152-53 (2004)- §6-2
United States v. Flynn, 309 F.3d 736, 739 (I Oth Cir. 2002)- §4-7
United States v. Friend, 50 F.3d 548 (8th Cir. 1995), vacated in part, 517 U.S.
1152 (1996)- §4-8
United States v Ganser, 315 F. 3d 839,844 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 538 U.S.
939 (2003)- §4- 12
United States v. Gant, 112 F.3d 239, 240, 242 (6th Cir. 1997)- §4-9
United States v. Garcia, 42 F. 3d 604, 605 (1Oth Cir. 1994), cert. denied, 514
u.s. 1073 (1995)- §4-9
United States v. Garcia-Garcia, 319 F.3d 726, 798-99 (5th Cir.), cert. denied,
539 u.s. 910 ( 1993)- §4-4
United States v. Garzon, 119 F.3d 1446, 1450-51 (I Oth Cir. 1997)- §4-9
United States v. Gates, 680 F.2d 1117 (6th Cir. 1982), cert. denied, 465 U.S.
1069 (1984) - §§7-1 , 7-2,7-4,7-5
United States v. Gaviria, 805 F.2d II 08, 1112 (2nd Cir.1986) - §8-2
United States v. Goldstein, 635 F.2d 356, 361-362 (5th Cir. 198 1)- §4-9
United States v. Gonzalez-Acosta, 989 F.2d 384, 388-89 (I Oth Cir. 1993) §4-3, 4-16
United States v. Griffin, 493 F.3d 856, 866 (7th Cir. 2007)- §7-5
United Sllltes v. Guzman, 75 F.3d 1090, 1092 (6th Cir. 1996) - §4-9
United States v. Gwinn, 191 F. 3d 874, 879 (8th Cir. 1999) - §4-9
United States v. Harvey, 961 F.2d 1361, 1363-64 (8th Cir. 1992) - §4-9
United States v. Hildenbrand!, 207 Fed.Appx. 50, 5 1 (2nd Cir. 2006)- §5-3
United States v. Hill, 195 F.3d 258, 273 (6th Cir. 1999), cert. denied, 528 U.S.
1176 (2000)- §4-16
United States v. Hornbeck, 63 Fed.Appx. 340 (9th Cir. 2003)- §7-1
United States v. Hudspeth, 518 F.3d 954, 960 (8th Cir. 2008) - §2-4
United States v. Huguenin, 154 F. 3d 547, 556 (6U1 Cir. 1998) - §4-7
United States v. Irick, 2008 WL 3864119 (II th Cir. 2008)- §4-5
United States v. Irving, 452 F.3d II 0, 123 (2nd Cir. 2006) - §8-2
United States v. Ivy, 973 F.2d 1184, 1187 (5th Cir. 1992), cert. denied, 507
U.S. 1022 (1993)- §2-4
United States v. Jackson, 390 F. 3d 393, 398 (5th Cir. 2004), j udgment vacated
on other grounds, 544 U.S. 917 (2005)- §4-4
United States v. Jacobs, 986 F.2d 1231, 1234 (8til Cir. 1993) - §4-2
United States v. Jacobsen, 466 U.S. 109, 121-22 (1984) - §4-1
United States v. Jenkins, 986 F.2d 76, 79 (4til Cir. 1993)- §6-3
United States v. Johns, 469 U.S. 478,487 (1985)- §2-4
United States v. Johnson, 171 F.3d 601,603 (8th Cir. 1999) - §4-12


United States v. Joyner, 492 F.2d 650 (D.C. Cir. 1974)- §7-1
United States v. Kelly, 302 F. 3d 291, 293 n. I (5th Cir. 2002) - §4-4
United States v. Kelly, 302 F. 3d 291, 295 (5th Cir. 2002)- §8-2
United States v. Kennedy, 13 1 F.3d 1371, 137 1 (lOth Cir. 1997) - §4-3
United States v. Klein, 626 F.2d 22, 27 (7th Cir. 1980)- §4-3
United States v. Klinginsmitlt, 25 F.3d 1507, 1510 ( lOth Cir.), cert. denied, 513
United States v. Knights, 534 U.S. 112, 118-119 (2001)- §2-1
United States v. Knights, 534 U.S. 112, 120 (200 1)- §2-4
United States v. Lakoskey, 462 F. 3d 965, 976 (8th Cir. 2006)- §4-5
United States v. Lavado, 750 F.2d 1527 (11th Cir. 1985), cert. denied, 474 U.S.
1054 ( 1986) - §7-1
United States v. Lawshea, 461 F.3d 857, 858 (7Ut Cir. 2006)- §3-4
United States v. Lender, 985 F.2d 151, 154 (4th Cir. 1993)- §4-5
· United States v. Lingenfelter, 997 F.2d 632, 638-39 (9th Cir. 1993) - §4-13
United States v. Lopez-Moreno, 420 F. 3d 420, 430 (5th Cir. 2005) - §2-2
United States v. Lovell, 849 F.2d 9 10, 915 (5th Cir. 1988)- §4-9
United States v. Ludwig, 10 F.3d 1523, 1527 ( lOUt Cir. 1993) - §§4-3, 4-8
United States v. Lugo, 170 F. 3d 996, 1003 (I Oth Cir. 1999) - §2-4
United States v. Lux, 905 F.2d 1379, 1380 n. I (lOth Cir. 1990) - §4-12
United States v. Lyons, 486 F.3d 367, 372 (8th Cir. 2007) - §4-5
United States v. Maltais, 403 F.3d 550, 557-58 (~th Cir. 2005) - §4-5
United States v. Martinez-Fuerte, 428 U.S. 543, 556 (1976) - §6-2
United States v. Massie, 65 F.3d 843, 847 (lOth Cir. 1995)- §6-2
United States v. Mayo, 394 F.3d 1271, 1277 (9th Cir. 2004)- §2-4
United States v. McCranie, 703 F.2d 1213, 1218 (I Oth Cir.l983) - §6-6
United States v. McRae, 8 1 F.3d 1528, 1537 (LOth Cir. 1996) - §2-4
United States v. Mendenhall, 446 U.S. 544, 553 ( 1980)- §2-5
United States v. Mora1es-Zamora, 914 F.2d 200,203 (lOUt Cir. 1990) - §6-2
United States v. Mora1es-Zamora, 9 14 F.2d 200,203-204 ( lOth Cir. 1990)§4-7
United States v. Moreno-Vargas, 315 F.3d 489, 491 (5th Cir. 2002) - §4-7
United States v. Morgan, 270 F. 3d 625, 63 1 (8Ut Cir. 200 l) - §4-5
United States v. Murphy, 516 F.3d 1117, 1124 (9th Cir. 2008) - §2-4
United States v. Mounts, 248 F.3d 712,715 (7til Cir. 200 1) - §4-3
United States v. Najar, 451 F.3d 710, 7 18 ( lOth Cir. 2006) - §§2-4. 7-6
United States v. Olivares-Campos, 276 Fed.Appx. 816, 822 (lOth Cir. 2008)§4-5
United States v.
United States v.
United States v.
United States v.
United States v.
United States v.
United States v.



Olivera-Mendez, 484 F.3d 505, 5 12 (8th CLI'. 2007)- §§4-3,
Orso1ini, 300 F.3d 724, 728 (6th Cir. 2002)- §4-5
Perez, 440 F. 3d 363, 375 (6th Cir. 2006)- §4-8
Pinter, 984 F.2d 376,379 (lOth Cir. 1993) - §2-3
Place, 462 U.S. 696, 707 (1983) - §4- 1
Place, 462 U.S. 696, 707 ( 1983) - §4-8
Place, 462 U.S. at 707- §4-1


United States v. Quoc Viet Hoang, 486 F.3d 1156, 1160 n. 1 (9th Cir. 2007),
cert. denied, _ U.S._ 128 S.Ct. 1064 (2008)- §4-12
United States v. Ramsey, 431 U.S. 606, 616 (1977)- §§4-10, 8-2
United States v. Reed, 141 F.3d 644,649 (6th Cir. 1998) - §4-15
United States v. Reed, 733 F.2d 492, 50 I (8th Cir.l 984)- §4-8
United States v. Reid, 226 F. 3d I 020, 1027 (9th Cir. 2000)- §2-4
United States v. Reyes, 349 F.3d 219, 224 (5th Cir. 2003), cert. denied, 540
u.s. 1228 (2004)- §4-4
United States v. Robinson, 390 F.3d 853, 870 (6th Cir. 2004)- §4-12
United States v. Robinson, 414 U.S. 2 18, 236 (1973)- §2-4
United States v. Roby, 122 F.3d 1120, 1125 (8th Cir. 1997) - §4-15
United States v. Rodriguez-Morales, 929 F.2d 780,787 (1st Cir. 1991), cert.
denied, 502 U.S. 1030 (1992)- §4-6
United States v. Rojas-Millan, 234 F.3d 464, 470 (9th Cir. 2000)- §4-5
United States v. Rosborough, 366 F.3d 1145, 1152 (lOth Cir. 2004) - §6-1
United States v. Ross, 456 U.S. 798, 820-2 1 (1982)- §2-4
United States v. Ross, 456 U.S. 798, 825 ( 1982) - §4-5
United States v. Sanders, 937 F.2d 1495, 1499 (lOth Cir. 1991)- §6-2
United States v. Santos, 403 F.3d 1120, 1132 (lOth Cir. 2005)- §4-5
United States v. Smith, 389 F. 3d 944, 953 (9th Cir. 2004)- §2-4
United States v. Sokolow, 490 U.S. I , 7 (1989)- §2-2
United States v. Stephens, 206 F.3d 914, 917 (9th Cir. 2000)- §2-3
United States v. Stone, 866 F.2d 359, 364 (lOth Cir. 1989) - §4-5
United Statesv. Sundby, 186 F.3d 873, 874 (8th Cir. 1999) - §§4-3, 4- 16
United States v. Thomas, 757 F.2d 1359 (2nd Cir. 1985), cert. denied, 479 U.S.
818 (1986)- §4-15
United States v. Thompson, 29 F.3d 62, 65 (2nd Cir. 1994)- §2-4
United States v. Torres-Ramos, 536 F. 3d 542, 554 (6th Cir. 2008)- §4-1
United States v. Trayer, 898 F.2d at 807 - §4-9
United States v. U.S . Currency, $30,060.00,39 F.3d 1039, 1043 (9th Cir.
1994) - §4-14
United States v. VaLerie, 424 F.3d 694, 706 (8th Cir. 2005), cert. denied, 548
u.s. 903 (2006)- §4-9
United States v. Vasquez, 909 F.2d 235 (7th Cir. 1990), cert. denied, 50 I U.S.
1217 (1991)-§4-15
United States v. Vega-Barvo, 729 F.2d 1341, 1345 ( lith Cir. 1984)- §8-2
United States v. Venema, 563 F.2d 1003, 1005 (lOth Cir. 1977)- §4-13
United States v. Ward, 144 F.3d 1024, 1032 (7th Cir. 1998)- §4-9
United States v. Watkins, 741 F. 2d 692 (5th 1984)- §7-1
United States v. West,-2 19 F.3d 1171, 1178-79 (lOth Cir. 2000). - §4-5
United States v. White, 42 F.3d 457,460 (8th Cir. 1994)- §4-5
United States v. Whitted, 541 F.3d 480, 486 (3rd Cir. 2008) - §4-10
United States v. WiUiams, 271 F.3d 1261,1269 (lOth Cir. 2001)- §4-5
United States v. WiUiams, 419 F.3d 1029, 1032 (9th Cir. 2005)- §4-5
United States v. Williams, 726 F.2d 661 (lOth Cir.), cert. denied, 467 U.S.
1245 (1984) - §4-2



States v. Windrix, 405 F.3d 1146, 1153 (I Oth Cir. 2005) - §4-5
States v. Winningham, 140 F.3d 1328, 1329 (lOth Cir. 1998) - §4-5
States v. Wood, 106 F.3d 942, 946-47 (lOth Cir. 1997) - §4-5
States v. Wright, 512 F.3d 466, 471 (8th Cir. 2008) - §4-7
States v. Zucco, 71 F.3d 188, 191-92 (5th Cir. 1995), cert. denied, 519
u.s. 827 ( 1996) - §2-4
Vathekan v. Prince George's County, 154 F.3d 173, 179 (4th Cir. 1998) §§3-6, 3-11
Vera Cruz v. City of Escondido, 139 F.3d 659 (9th C ir. 1998) - §§3-1 , 3-6
Vernonia School District 47J v. Acton, 515 U.S. 646, 648 (1995) - §4-11
Walter v. United States, 447 U.S. 649, 657 (1980) - §2-1
Warren v. City of Lincoln, 864 F. 2d 1436, 1441 (8th Cir. 1987), cert. denied,
490U.S.I091 (1989) - §7-3
Warren v. City of Lincoln, Nebraska, 864 F. 2d 1436 (8th Cir. 1989)- §7- 1
Watkins v. City of Oakland, 145 F.3d 1087, 1090 (9th Cir. 1998) - §3-6
Watkins v. City of Oakland, 145 F.3d 1087, 1094 (9th Cir.l998) - §3-10
Welsh v. Wisconsin, 466 U.S. 740, 749-750 ( 1984)- §2-4
Whitley v. Albers, 475 U.S. 312, 327 (1986)- §2-5
Yang v. Hardin, 37 F.3d 282,285 (7th Cir. 1994)- §3-12
Ybarra v. Illinois, 444 U.S. 85, 91 (1979)- §§2-2, 4-4
Yell v. Kentucky, _ U.S._ 128 S.Ct. 2068 (2008) - §5-3
York v. City of Las Cruces, 523 F.3d 1205, 1209 (lOth Cir. 2008) - §2-5
Zivojinovich v. Barner, 525 FJd I 059, I 072 (lith Cir. 2008) - §3-3
Flowers v. State, 755 So.2d 708, 709 (Fla. App. 4th Dist. 1999)- §4-8
Fones v. State, 765 So.2d 849, 850 (Fla. App. 4th Dist. 2000) - §5-3
McCray v. State, 915 So.2d 239,240 (Fla. App. 3rd Dist. 2005) - §7-2
McCray v. State, 915 So. 2d 239 (Fla. App. 3rd Dist. 2005) - §7- 1
Ramos v. State, 496 So.2d 121 , 123 (Fla. 1986)- §7-5
Samarco v. Neumann, 44 F.Supp.2d 1276, 1285 (S.D. Fla. 1999) - §3
State v. Griffin, 949 So.2d 309, 311 (Fla. App.) - §4-5
State v. Rabb, 920 So.2d 1175 (Fla. App.), cert. denied, _ U.S. _ _ . J 127
S.Ct. 665 (2006)- §4-15
State v. Riggs, 918 So.2d 274, 276-77 (Fla. 2005) - §7-6
United States v. Brown, 298 F.Supp.2d 1317, 1319 (S.D. Fla. 2004)- §4-10
United States v. Veltrnann, 869 F.Supp. 929,933 (M.D. Fla. 1994), aff'd, 87
F.3d 1329 (lith Cir. 1996)- §5-2
G eorgia
Carr v. State, 482 S.E.2d 314, 317 (Ga. 1997) - §5-3
Ingram v. State, 44 1 S.E.2d 74 (Ga. App. 1994) - §7-1
McCray v. State, 60 I S.E.2d 452, 455-56 (Ga. App. 2004)- §4-7

State v. Keaweehu, 129 P.3d 1157, 1165 (Hawai'i App. 2006) 201




United States v. Matau, 19 1 F.Supp.2d 1173, 1182 (D. 1-lawai'i 2002) -


Idaho Department of Law Enforcement v. $34,000 U.S. Currency, 824 P.2d
142,136(1dahoApp. l991) -§4-6
State v. Streeper, 747 P.2d 71 (Idaho 1987) - §7-1
State v. Thurman, 996 P.2d 309 (Idaho App. 1999) - §8-1
United States v. Esparza, 2007 WL 2684836 (D. Idaho 2007)- §6-4

Graham v. City of Chicago, 828 F. Supp. 576, 582 (N .D. lll. 1993)- §9-3
People v. Acri, 662 N.E.2d 115, 117 (Ill. App. 1996) - §5-3
People v. Bartelt, - N.E.2d - , 2008 WL41 82445 (Ill . App. 4th Dist.
2008)- §4-5
People v. McDonald, 749 N.E.2d 1066 (Ill. App. 2001)- §7-1

Brafford v. State, 5 16 N.E.2d 45 (Ind. 1987)- §7-1
Doe v. Renfrow, 475 F.Supp. 10 12, 1017 n. 5 (D.C. Ind. 1979), aff'd in part,
remanded in part, 631 F2d 91 (7th Cir. 1980)- §4-2
Mason v. Hamilton Coun ty, 13 F.Supp.2d 829, 833 (S.D. Ind. 1998) - §3-4
Myers v. State, 839 N.E.2d 1154 (Ind. 2005), cert. den ied, 547 U.S. 1148
(2006) - §4- 11
Roddy v. Canine Officer, 293 F.Supp.2d 906, 910 (S.D. Ind. 2003)- §3-7
State v. Buller, 5 17 N.W.2d 711 ,7 12-1 4 (Iowa 1994)- §§5-3, 7-1

Ma ryland
Clark v. State, 781 A.2d 913,935-36 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 2001)- §7-8
Fitzgerald v. State, 864 A.2d 1006, 1017- 18 (Md. 2004)- §4-15
Roberts v. State, 469 A.2d 442 (Md. 1983)- §§7- 1, 7-4, 7-S
United States v. Burrow, 396 F.Supp. 890 (D. Md. 1975)- §6-3

Andrews v. Dubois, 888 F. Supp. 2 13 (D. Mass. 1995)- §9-3
Commonwealth v. Crouse, 855 N.E.2d 39 1,402 (Mass. 2006) - §S-3
Commonwealth v. Hill, 75 I N.E.2d 446 (Mass. App. 200 I ) - §7- 1
United States v. $14,665.00, 33 F.Supp.2d 47, 58 n. 9 (D. Mass. 1998) §4-1 4
People v. Jackson, 2008 WL 2037805 (Mich. App. 2008) - §S-3
People v. Jones, 755 N.W.2d 224,226 (Mich. App. 2008)- §4- 15
People v. Jones, 755 N. W.2d 224,228 (Mich. App. 2008) - §4
People v. Lewis, 649 N.W.2d 792, 800 (Mich. App.), cert. denied, 653 N. W.2d
4 11 (Mich. 2002) - §4-5
People v. Stone, 491 N.W.2d 628 (Mich. 1992) - §7- 1

McDuffie v. State, 482 N.W.2d 234 (Minn. App. 1992) - §7-1
State v. Carter, 697 N.W.2d 199,202 (Minn. 2005) - §4- 13
State v. Kolb, 674 N. W.2d 238, 239 (Minn. App. 2004)- §4-6
State v. Voss, 683 N. W.2d 846, 85 1 (Minn. App. 2004)- §5-2

State v. Wainwright, 856 P.2d 163 (Kan. App. 1993) -

§§7- 1, 7-3

Yell v. Commonwealth, 242 S. W.Jd 33 1 (Ky. 2007)- §5-3, 7-1
State v. Green, 26 So. 2d 487 (La. 1946)- §7-1
State v. Knowles, 917 So.2d 1262, 127 1 (La. App. 1994) - §8- 1
State v. Logo, 798 So.2d 1182, 1183 (La. App. 4th Cir. 200 I) - §4-1 0
United States v. Cunningham, 1996 WL 665747 (E.D. La. 1996)- §4- 10

Drane v. State, 493 So.2d 294 (Miss. 1986) - §8- 1
Hudson v. State, 977 So. 2d 344 (Miss. App. 2007), cert. denied, (Miss. Mar.
20, 2008) - §7-1
L.T. ex rei. Hollins v. City of Jackson, 145 F.Supp.2d 750, 760 (S.D. Miss.
2000) - §3-13

Burden v. Hornsby, SO Mo. 238 (1872)- Chapter I
State v. Thomas, 536 S.W.2d 529 (Mo. App. 1976) - §7-1
United States v. Mohamed, 2007 WL 3352491 (W.O. Mo. 2007) -

Monta na

State v. Storm, 238 P.2d 1161 (Mont. 195 I) -

Luce v. Hayden, 598 F.Supp. 110 1, 1103 (D.C. Me. 1984)- §3-12
State v. Sherburne, 57 1 A.2d 1181 (Me. 1990)- §8-1



§7- 1



Brott v. State, 97 N.W. 593 (Neb. 1903) - §7-1
State v. Lancelotti, 595 N.W.2d 558, 560 (Neb. App. 1999) - §4-9
State v. Louthan, 744 N. W.2d 454, 462 (Neb. 2008) - §4-5
State v. Silvers, 587 N.W.2d 325,333 (Neb. 1998) - §5-2
United States v. Crick, 2007 WL 2306921 (D. Neb. 2007)- §4-5

United States v. Hernandez-Torres, 2006 WL 696184 (D. Nev. 2006), aff'd,
234 Fed.Appx. 752 (9th Cir. 2007) - §4-5


Blue Ash v. Kavanagh, 862 N.E.2d 810, 813 (Ohio 2007)- §4-6
State v. Bridge, 573 N.E.2d 762, 764 (Ohio App. 6th Dist. 1989), jurisdictional
motion overruled, 551 N.E.2d 1304 (Ohio 1990) - §7-3
State v. Dewitt, 2007 WL 1934335 (Ohio App. 2nd Dist. 2007)- §7-3
State v. Mullins, 2006 WL 438662 (Ohio App. 5th Dist. 2006)- §4-5
State v. Neeley, 758 N.E.2d 745 (Ohio App. I st Dist. Hamilton County 200 I),
dismissed, appeal not allowed, 755 N.E.2d 351 (Ohio 2001)- §7-1
United States v. Barrett, 976 F.Supp. 1105, II 09 (N.D. Ohio 1997) - §4-9

New Hampshire

Buck v. State, 138 P.2d 115 (Okla. Crim.1943) - Chapter I, §7-1

State v. Taylor, 395 A2d 505 (N.H. 1978)- §7-1

New Jersey
State v. Parton, 597 A.2d 1088 (N.J. Super. App. Div. 1991), cert. denied, 606
A.2d371 (N.J. 1992)- §7-1
State v. Sharp, 928 A.2d 165, 169 (N.J. Super. 2006)- §5-3

State v. Harris, 547 P.2d 1394 (Or. App. 1976), ovemaled on other grounds by
State v. Plankinton, 66 1 P.2d 1387 (Or. App. 1983) - §7-1
State v. Slowikowski, 761 P.2d 1315, 1320 (Or. 1988) - §4-13
State v. TourtiUon, 6 18 P.2d 423 (Or. 1980), cert. denied, 451 U.S. 972 ( 1981)

New Mexico
United States v. Florez, 871 F.Supp. 1411, 1420 (D.N.M. 1994) - §§4-3, 4-16
United States v. Morales, 489 F.Supp.2d 1250, 1250 (D.N.M. 2007)- §4-16

New York
People v. Dunn, 564 N.E.2d 1054, 1056 (1990), cert. denied, 501 U.S. 1219
(1991)- §4-15
People v. Muggelberg, 518 N.Y.S.2d 285 (A.D. 4th Dep't 1987) - §7-1
Reich v. New York City Transit Authority, 839 F. Supp. 171 , 181-82 (E.D.N.Y.
1993) - §9-3
United States v. McNiece, 558 F.Supp. 612,617 (D.C.N.Y. 1983)- §7-4

Carita v. Kandianis, 1994 WL 583213 (E.D. Pa. 1994), aff'd, 65 F.3d 161 (3rd
Cir. 1995) - §3-7
Commonwealth v. Gwynn, 723 A.2d 143, 152 (Pa. 1999)- §5-3
Commonwealth v. Johnston, 530 A.2d 74, 79 (Pa. 1987)- §4-13
Commonwealth. v. Patterson, 572 A.2d 1258 (Pa. Super. 1990) - §7-1
Marley v. City of Allentown, 774 F.Supp. 343, 345 (E.D. Pa. 1991), aff'd, 961
F.2d 1567 (3rd Cir. 1992) - §3-5

Rhode Island
State v. Webber, 716 A.2d 738,741 (R.I. 1998) -


North Carolina
Rice v. Smith, 2007 WL 5379871 (M.D.N.C. 2007) - §§2-5, 3-8
State v. Brimmer, 653 S.E.2d 196, 199 (N.C. App. 2007)- §4-5
State v. Green, 334 S.E.2d 263,265-66 (N.C. App. 1985)- §7-2
State v. Styles, 379 S.E.2d 255 (N.C. App. 1989) - §7-1

North Dakota
State v. Albaugh, 571 N.W.2d 345 (N.D. 1997)- §8-1
State v. Iverson, 187 N.W.2d I (N.D.), cert denied, 404 U.S. 956 (1971) §7-1


South Carolina
State v. White, 642 S.E.2d 607 (S.C. App. 2007) -


South Dakota
State v. Halverson, 277 N.W.2d 723 (S.D. 1979) - §8-1
State v. Lockstedt, 695 N. W.2d 718, 728 (S. D. 2005) - §4-2
State v. Nguyen, 726 N.W.2d 871, 878 n. 4 (S.D. 2007)- §4-16
United States v. Hernandez-Mendoza, 2008 WL 3200748 (D. S.D. 2008) §4-5



Hugueley v. Dresden Police Department, 469 F.Supp.2d 507,513 (W.D, Tenn.
2007) - §4-5
State v. Brewer, 875 S.W.2d 298, 301 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1993)- §7-2
State v. Jones, 735 S.W.2d 803 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1987)- §7-2
State v. Shepherd, 902 S.W.2d 895 (Tenn. l995)- §7- 1
Thompson v. State Farm Fire and Casualty Co., 548 f.Supp.2d 588, 592 (W.O.
Tenn. 2008)- §5-3
United States v. Howard, 448 F.Supp.2d 889, 898 (E.D. Tenn. 2006)- §4-1 6
United States v. Page, 154 F.Supp.2d 1320, 1325 n. I (M.D. Tenn. 2001) §4-16


State v. Nicholas, 663 P.2d 1356 (Wash. App. 1983) State v. Wieting, 85 Wash. App. 10 11 ( 1997) - §7-2

West Virginia
State v. Broughton, 470 S.E.2d 413 (W.Va. 1996)- §7-1

State v. Arias, 752 N. W.2d 748, 756 (Wis. 2008)- §4-5
State v. Larsen, 736 N.W.2d 211, 216- 17 (Wis. App.), review denied, 74 1
N.W.2d 241 (Wis. 2007)- §7-6

City of Garland v. Rivera, 146 S.W.3d 334 (Tex. App. DaUas 2004)- §3-1
Johnson v. State, 673 S.W.2d 203 (Tex. App. l983) - §7-1
Kesler v. King, 29 F.Supp.2d 356, 372 (S. D. Tex. 1998)- §3-8
Martinez v. State, 2006 WL 3720136 (Tex. App. 2006)- §7-2
Risher v. State, 227 S.W.3d 133, 137 (Tex. App. Houston 1st Dist. 2006)§7-5
Smith v. State, 2004 WL 2 13395 (Tex. App. 1st Dist. 2004), cert. denied, 544
U.S. 96 1 (2005)- §4-1 5
Trejos v. State, 243 S. W.3d 30, 53 (Tex. App. Houston I st Dist. 2007)- §7-8
United States v. Tarazon-Silva, 960 F. Supp. 11 52, 1163 (W. O. Tex. 1997),
atf'd, 166F.3d341 (5th Cir. 1998)-§4-15
Winston v. State, 78 S. W.3d 522, 526 (Tex. App. 2002) - §7-2

State v. Schultz, 58 P.3d 879, 885 (Utah App. 2002) - §5-3
State v. Sims, 808 P.2d 141 ( Utah App. 199 1)- §8-1

State v. Bourassa, 399 A.2d 507 (Vt. 1979)- §7-1

Pelletier v. Commonwealth, 592 S.E.2d 382 (Va. App. 2004), cert. denied sub
nom. PeUetier v. Watson, _ U.S._, 128 S.Ct. 29 13 (2008)- §§7- 1,
Tmslow v. Spotsylvania County Sheriff, 783 F. Supp. 274, 279 (E.D. Va.
1992), aff'd, 993 F.2d 1539 (4th Cir. 1993) - §9-4

Dickinson v. City of Kent, 2007 WL 1830744 (W.D. Wash. 2007) - §3-6
Schlegel v. State Department of Licensing, I 53 P.3d 244 (Wash. App. 2007) §8-1
State v. Loucks, 656 P.2d 480, 482 (Wash. 1983) - §7-3


§7- 1




Disciplinary Self-Help Litigation Manual - Side
CLN Subscribe Now Ad
Prison Phone Justice Campaign