United States v. Talanivalu Olotoa, 714 F. App'x 639

Olotoa was convicted of conspiracy to distribute ≥50 g methamphetamine, distribution of ≥50 g methamphetamine, and distribution of hydrocodone following discovery of controlled substances in a mailed package and his confession.
Law enforcement used a certified drug‑sniffing dog that alerted to the package; the government obtained a warrant based on an affidavit detailing the dog’s training and certifications.
Olotoa later invoked his right to counsel but then initiated further communication, signed a written waiver of Miranda rights, and confessed that the package contained methamphetamine and hydrocodone.
Olotoa moved to suppress the package evidence (challenging the dog alert and warrant) and his confession (arguing it was involuntary and tainted by prior invocation of counsel); the district court denied both motions.
Olotoa also argued the government violated Rule 16 and local rules by not providing a pretrial written summary of a forensic chemist’s expected testimony; he claimed prejudice from that omission.
The Ninth Circuit affirmed, rejecting Olotoa’s challenges to the search, confession voluntariness, and alleged discovery violation.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Validity of search warrant based on dog alert	Dog alerts unreliable; field "false positives" show error	Alert reliable: dog certified, training records, presumptive probable cause under Florida v. Harris	Warrant valid; dog’s certifications and records create presumption of probable cause; alert adequate
Voluntariness of confession after invocation of counsel	Confession coerced by agent statements about penalties and cooperation; earlier invocation means later statements tainted	Olotoa reinitiated communication, signed waiver, knowingly waived rights; statements not coercive	Confession voluntary; waiver knowing; reinitiation after invocation permitted under Shatzer
Whether interrogation in police car violated right to counsel	(Implied) Interrogation occurred while right to counsel was invoked, so confession inadmissible	No interrogation occurred while counsel was invoked; Olotoa initiated contact later and waived rights	No violation: Olotoa initiated communication after invoking counsel; waiver valid
Rule 16 / discovery violation for chemist summary	Failure to provide written expert summary prejudiced defense, warranting reversal	Any discovery defect harmless: Olotoa confessed and did not object to admission of chemist reports; no showing verdict would differ	Even if violation occurred, no prejudice shown; conviction stands

Florida v. Harris, 568 U.S. 237 (certified canine alert creates presumption of probable cause when supported by training/records)
United States v. Preston, 751 F.3d 1008 (9th Cir.) (standard of review for voluntariness)
United States v. Rodgers, 656 F.3d 1023 (9th Cir.) (review of suppression denials)
Maryland v. Shatzer, 559 U.S. 98 (post‑invocation reinitiation by suspect allows subsequent waiver)
Withrow v. Williams, 507 U.S. 680 (voluntariness standard for confessions)
Ortiz v. Uribe, 671 F.3d 863 (9th Cir.) (overborne will standard)
United States v. Bautista‑Avila, 6 F.3d 1360 (9th Cir.) (promises of leniency and penalty discussion not inherently coercive)
Moran v. Burbine, 475 U.S. 412 (police conduct must shock the conscience to render confession involuntary)
United States v. Mendoza‑Paz, 286 F.3d 1104 (9th Cir.) (prejudice required to reverse for discovery violations)
United States v. Figueroa‑Lopez, 125 F.3d 1241 (9th Cir.) (defendant must show how nondisclosure affected verdict)