United States v. Roman Contreras, 700 F. App'x 669

Contreras was convicted for attempting to possess 500+ grams of methamphetamine with intent to distribute; he appealed the denial of his motion to suppress.
DEA and Kauai PD received two anonymous tips: one predicted Contreras’s flight and gave a precise description of a non-leather black handbag; the other identified a black tow truck as his vehicle.
Officers observed Contreras carrying the described black carry-on while also having two checked bags, repeatedly looking over his shoulder, and walking toward the described tow truck.
DEA Special Agent Jones asked Contreras to move 15–20 feet to another public area and sit so a narcotics dog could sniff the carry-on; the encounter lasted about 5–6 minutes and Jones minimally assisted with disentangling the bag.
The drug dog alerted to the carry-on; officers then obtained a warrant for all checked luggage and searched, leading to Contreras’s arrest and conviction.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether anonymous tips + observations supported reasonable suspicion to stop Contreras	Tips were unreliable and insufficient to justify stop	Tips were detailed, predictive, and corroborated by police observations	Stop was supported by reasonable suspicion under the totality of circumstances
Whether the encounter was an unlawful arrest prior to dog sniff	Contreras argued he was effectively arrested before the dog sniff	Government said it was a brief investigatory stop; Jones only assisted minimally	The stop was a permissible investigatory detention (not an arrest) lasting 5–6 minutes
Reliability of the drug dog alert and whether it provided probable cause to arrest	Contreras claimed handler contact contaminated the bag and dog was unreliable due to misses	Government produced certifications/training establishing reliability; dog’s alert presumed reliable absent evidence to the contrary	Dog’s alert was reliable and supplied probable cause for arrest
Probable cause for the search warrant for all luggage	Contreras argued warrant lacked probable cause	Government relied on tips, dog alert, and training/records in affidavit	Magistrate and court found affidavit provided probable cause to search luggage

United States v. Rodgers, 656 F.3d 1023 (9th Cir. 2011) (standards for detention and dog-sniff encounters at airports)
United States v. Arvizu, 534 U.S. 266 (2002) (totality-of-the-circumstances test for reasonable suspicion)
United States v. Morales, 252 F.3d 1070 (9th Cir. 2001) (anonymous tips can supply reasonable suspicion when predictive and corroborated)
United States v. Christian, 356 F.3d 1103 (9th Cir. 2004) (permissible scope of investigatory stops to employ a drug dog sniff)
Maryland v. Pringle, 540 U.S. 366 (2003) (probable cause to arrest based on facts that would lead a prudent person to believe a crime occurred)
Florida v. Harris, 568 U.S. 237 (2013) (certifications and training records can establish a narcotics dog’s reliability; single misses do not negate probable cause)
United States v. Grant, 682 F.3d 827 (9th Cir. 2012) (probable cause standard for magistrate judge issuing search warrants)
United States v. Gourde, 440 F.3d 1065 (9th Cir. 2006) (commonsense probable-cause inquiry for warrant affidavits)