Search and Seizure: Drug-sniffing dog’s responses provided basis for search

Where a drug-sniffing canine engaged in a display of distinctive nontrained behavioral changes that were sufficient to provide her handler with probable cause to believe that she detected the odor of illegal drugs in the defendant’s car, the defendant’s motion to suppress was denied.

Background

Tecquin Darkeem Moore argues that the denial of the motion to suppress was error. He points to the failure of the drug-sniffing canine to formally “alert” to the presence of drugs in his car, and he contends that absent such a specific signal, the search was not supported by probable cause.

Analysis

In Florida v. Harris, 568 U.S. 237 (2013), the United States Supreme Court referred to a drug canine’s act of “alert[ing]” toward a particular spot or location as “signaling, through a distinctive set of behaviors, that [the dog] smelled drugs there.” The court also made clear that the totality-of-the-circumstances standard governing probable cause determinations in general encompasses dog-sniff assessments and provides the appropriate framework for the analysis in such circumstances.

The court should consider several key factors in evaluating dog-alert testimony. These factors include the “training and reliability of the dog in the detection of specific drugs by odor,” “the witness handler’s expertise in interpreting the dog’s behavior,” the “circumstances conducive to a dependable scent identification by the animal” and “a credible evaluation” of the dog’s behavior by the handler.

In other words, the distinctive set of behaviors that constitute a drug dog’s means of signaling to its handler that the dog smelled drugs may vary based on the characteristics of the particular dog, the particular handler and the specific training of both. And these factors are to be viewed in the context of the particular case.

The evidence here supports the circuit court’s finding that (1) Deputy Reynolds, who was trained and certified, gave credible testimony and (2) Caroline, also trained and certified, engaged in a display of distinctive nontrained behavioral changes sufficient to provide Reynolds with probable cause to believe that she detected the odor of illegal drugs in Moore’s car. Certainly in some cases, behavior less than a final response may not support a finding of probable cause.

But in this case, and in light of the circuit court’s acceptance of the deputy’s testimony as credible, the record contains more than enough evidence of Caroline’s reliability in detecting the odor of drugs under similar circumstances—based on multiple nontrained behavioral changes rather than a single final response—to provide the requisite probable cause for a search.

Reynolds elaborated on how Caroline’s behavior short of a trained final response could reliably signal her detection of the odor of one or more drugs. Reynolds explained that drug dogs like Caroline exhibit “non[]trained behavioral changes” when they first detect the odor of drugs they are trained to find. He noted that his training as a certified drug-dog handler taught him that three specific nontrained behavioral changes while circling a target indicate the dog has detected the odor of drugs.

Reynolds referenced two different categories from which the three nontrained behavioral changes could be drawn—changes in breathing and changes in posture. Both movements indicate the dog has detected the odor of drugs and wants to find them and get the reward. Importantly here, Reynolds also testified that when training in controlled environments, Caroline had never exhibited nontrained behavioral changes when drugs were not present in a car.

Finally, Reynolds described the three nontrained behavioral changes he observed in Caroline: “a rapid breathing change” at the front of the Charger during each of her two circuits around the car, counting as two changes, as well as a “a head turn” at the rear driver’s-side door, which qualified as the third change. He confirmed that those three changes, viewed together, based on his training and experience with Caroline, showed that she detected the odor of methamphetamine, cocaine or heroin coming from the car.

Affirmed.

Commonwealth v. Moore, Record No. 0715-24-3, Aug. 26, 2025. CAV (Decker). From the Circuit Court of the City of Danville (Milam Jr.). James C. Martin (Martin & Martin Law Firm, on briefs), for appellant. Ken J. Baldassari, Assistant Attorney General (Jason S. Miyares, Attorney General, on brief), for appellee. VLW 025-7-227. 16 pp.