Page 29 - 2018 sept oct journal_PJ (1)_Neat

modifications. He also had significant personal challenges this logic, arguing that a negative
experience with this particular type of trailer. result on a canine search does not overcome
reasonable suspicion because (1) traffickers can
Taken together, we find that the modifications to sometimes successfully disguise the scent of
the trailer created “a reasonable belief that the narcotics and (2) “the deputies had ample
vehicle contained a false compartment . . . , and independent facts supporting a reasonable belief
this belief created at least reasonable suspicion” [that] the trailer contained a hidden
to prolong the detention. (emphasis by editor) compartment.”
Thus, we conclude that Villafranco-Elizondo’s Circuits are divided over whether a dog’s failure
consent to search was not tainted by any unlawful to alert necessarily destroys an officer’s
detention. reasonable suspicion.
…
We do not suggest that a law enforcement officer
may circumvent these principles by ignoring the We have never spoken on that precise question;
results of a license check until he has developed however, we have previously rejected the notion
reasonable suspicion to prolong a detention. The that the failure of a drug dog to alert deprives
record here supports the conclusion that Woody officers of existing probable cause.31 We apply
noticed a number of modifications to the trailer that principle here. By the time the canine search
before he initiated the license check at the eleven- began, the officers had developed probable cause
minute mark. In fact, the recording shows that to search the vehicle. In addition to the evidence
Woody was alert to the possibility of a hidden that gave rise to Woody’s initial suspicion, the
compartment in the first four minutes of the stop. officers uncovered several additional pieces of
We do not, because we need not, address what evidence indicating that the trailer had been
would happen if an officer developed reasonable modified, including weak welds on the tailgate,
suspicion only after a license check is complete mud smeared underneath the trailer, bondo dust
but before the officer learns its results. and fresh paint, and inconsistent readings from the
Approximately thirty-nine minutes into the stop, density meter. Here, the totality of the
the officers began a canine search of the vehicle. circumstances led the officers, based on their
The parties disagree over its result. The training and experience, to conclude that the
government contends that the dog “indicated the trailer contained a hidden compartment—a
presence of a narcotics odor but did not give a conclusion that, with all the other circumstances,
final response because the odor was supported probable cause. Under these
overwhelming.” Villafranco-Elizondo accuses the circumstances, the dog’s failure to alert did not
officers of fabricating this explanation. eliminate the officer’s existing probable cause.

The district court found that the dog did not alert, U.S. v. VILLAFRANCO-ELIZONDO, 5th Cir. No.
and went on to hold that even if the officers had 17-30530, July 27, 2018.
developed reasonable suspicion earlier in the stop,
“any reasonable suspicion of criminal activity ***************************************
most certainly ended when the dog failed to alert.” ******************************
The court reasoned that “[t]he illegal activity
suspected was contraband, not compartments,”
and that the dog’s failure to alert indicated that the
trailer contained no contraband. The government

Sept./Oct. 2018 www.texaspoliceassociation.com • 866-997-8282 25