finding that “[a] drug-sniffing canine alert is sufficient, standing alone, to support probable cause for a search”
How later courts described this case
- finding that “[a] drug-sniffing canine alert is sufficient, standing alone, to support probable cause for a search”
- holding that a “drug- sniffing canine alert is sufficient, standing alone, to support probable cause for a search”
- holding that warrantless arrest based on probable cause did not violate the Fourth Amendment
- “A warrantless arrest must be based on ‘probable cause.’ Probable cause exists when the totality of the facts and circumstances within a police officer's knowledge at the moment of arrest are sufficient for a reasonable person to conclude that the suspect had committed or was committing an offense.”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 99-30593
Summary Calendar
NAHU RESENDIZ; EVARISTO LANDA COVARRUBIAS, individually and on
behalf of Jessie Landa Covarrubias,
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
VERSUS
KEVIN MILLER, Individually & in his official capacity as officer
of the Sulphur Police Department; BILLY CRADDOCK, Individually & in
his official capacity as officer of the Sulphur Police Department;
T.J. ANDRUS, Individually & in his official capacity as Chief of
Police of the Sulphur Police Department; POLICE DEPT CITY OF
SULPHUR; CITY OF SULPHUR,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Louisiana
February 25, 2000
Before SMITH, BARKSDALE, and PARKER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Nahu Resendiz and Evaristo Landa Covarrubias filed suit
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1994) alleging that the defendants
violated their Fourth Amendment rights by arresting them without
probable cause and without a warrant. The district court granted
1
the defendants’ motion for summary judgment on the basis of
qualified immunity after determining that the arrest was based on
probable cause. We affirm.
We review the grant of a motion for summary judgment de novo,
using the same criteria applied by the district court. See United
States v. 1988 Oldsmobile Supreme, 983 F.2d 670, 673 (5th Cir.
1993). Summary judgment is required when the evidence, viewed in
the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, presents no
genuine issue of material fact and the moving party is entitled to
judgment as a matter of law. See Ellert v. University of Texas at
Dallas, 52 F.3d 543 (5th Cir. 1995).
A warrantless arrest must be based on “probable cause.”
Probable cause exists when the totality of facts and circumstances
within a police officer’s knowledge at the moment of arrest are
sufficient for a reasonable person to conclude that the suspect had
committed or was committing an offense. See United States v.
Wadley, 59 f.3d 510, 512 (5th Cir. 1995). The presence of probable
cause is a mixed question of fact and law. See id. Because there
is substantial agreement between the parties concerning the facts
of this case, we focus on the ultimate determination of whether
there was probable cause for the arrest, which is a question of law
that we review de novo. See id.
The record reveals that the totality of the circumstances
known to the officers at the time of arrest of Resendiz and
2
Covarrubias is as follows. The appellants were traveling in a new
vehicle registered the day before in a state in which neither man
lived. The owner of the vehicle did not have a driver’s license.
Both men were carrying considerable amounts of currency (over
$11,000 in all), much of it stuffed into Resendiz’s shoes. A drug
sniffing canine alerted twice to the shoes and the cash.
A drug-sniffing canine alert is sufficient, standing alone, to
support probable cause for a search. See United States v.
Williams, 69 F.3d 27, 28 (1995).1 Although Williams involved a
search rather than an arrest, we found the reasoning in Williams
instructive in determining that a signal from electronic device
used to track bait money taken during a bank robbery constituted a
sufficient basis for probable cause for a warrantless arrest. See
United States v. Levine, 80 F.3d 129, 134 (5th Cir. 1996). In
addition to the canine alert,2 the officers in this case properly
considered the large amounts of cash in the appellants’ possession
as well as the vehicle registration information in deciding to
1
Williams has been mistakenly cited for the proposition that a
dog alert alone is “sufficient to support probable cause for a
warrantless arrest.” United States v. Levine, 80 F.3d 129, 133
(5th Cir. 1996)(emphasis added). Apparently a clerical error, this
statement was not the holding of either Williams or Levine.
2
The Fifth Circuit has not had the occasion to decide whether a
drug dog alert alone is sufficient to constitute probable cause to
arrest the person associated with the item that prompted the alert.
See, e.g., United States v. Mendez, 27 F.3d 126, 130 n.5 (5th Cir.
1994). Because other factors supported the probable cause
determination in this case, we do not reach the question.
3
arrest the appellants. See, e.g., United States v. Kye Soo Lee,
962 F.2d 430, 436 n.2d (5th Cir. 1992)(officers had probable cause
to arrest driver and passenger based on, inter alia, registration
of vehicle in state other than point of origin or destination of
either occupant and their possession of an unusually large amount
of cash). We therefore conclude that the totality of facts and
circumstances known to the officers at the time of the arrest in
this case was sufficient to establish probable cause.
Accordingly, appellants have failed to establish a violation
of their Fourth Amendment rights and appellees are entitled to
qualified immunity. See Kerr v. Lyford, 171 F.3d 330, 338 (5th
Cir. 1999). Based on the foregoing, we affirm the judgment of the
district court.
AFFIRMED.
4