delivered the opinion of the unanimous Court.
Appellant, convicted of money laundering after officers found half a million dollars in cash hidden inside the speaker box of his tractor-trailer, argues that the evidence was legally insufficient to prove that the money represented proceeds from the delivery of a controlled substance.
1
The court of appeals — relying in part on a
I.
On July 9, 2010, at 10:00 p.m., Trooper Brody Moore stopped a Freightliner tractor-trailer truck with a defectivе light in Haskell County. Appellant was driving the truck, and a passenger was in the sleeper. Appellant said that the passenger’s name was “Gus,” but he could not recall his last name. Appellant said that Gus wanted to be a truck driver, so he was riding with appellant cross-country. But Gus (whose full name was later determined to be Gustavo Dominguez) had no driver’s license. Trooper Moore noted that there were five cell phones in the truck. Based on his training and experience in drug and drug-money interdiction, the trooper recognized a pattern similar to that in other money seizures: a passenger with no driver’s license was traveling with the truck driver.
Trooper Moore also pointed out that five cell phones between one driver and an unemployed passenger was “just not normal.” He found that the truck’s logbook reflected that the truck originated from El Paso and that appellant left Kankakee, Illinois, 3 at 2:00 p.m. on July 8th. Truckers are required to update their logbooks when there is a “duty status change,” such as when they stop for fuel or rest. The last entry in the logbook was at 4:00 a.m. in Missouri. Trooper Moore observed that 4:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. was longer than a trucker should drive in one sitting. 4 He explained that drivers often do that when they want to avoid detection. Trooper Moore testified that he had experience with drug loads originating in El Paso. The drugs go out frоm there; the money comes back in. “Drugs go north; money comes south.” 5
Trooper Moore asked appellant if he had anything illegal in the truck. Then he asked if he had any guns, marijuana, cocaine, methamphetamine, or heroin. Finally, he asked, “Do you have any large sums of cash?” Appellant responded “no” to all of the questions, but he broke eye contact when responding to the last one. When Trooper Moore asked for consent to search the truck, appellant granted it. Deputy Winston Stephens arrived to assist in the search.
The two officers hollered when they found what turned out to be $502,020 in currency in a cavity behind the speakers of the truck. The officers then approached appellant and his passenger — both of whom had been cooperative throughout the stop — with guns drawn to arrest them for money laundering. DPS Sergeant Kyle Taylor, a K-9 handler, placed the vacuum-sealed bundles of currency in two
Both men were indicted for money laundering. Dominguez was found guilty before appellant’s triаl and sentenced to ten years’ imprisonment. 6 Appellant’s defense at trial was that he — unlike Dominguez— was a “blind mule” who never knew that the money (which appellant conceded in final argument was probably drug proceeds) was there. 7 In rebuttal, Haskell County Sheriff David Halliburton testified that, while he was serving as bailiff in an earlier proceeding, he saw appellant and Dominguez have what appeared to be an amicable conversation. The State used this evidence to argue that appellant was not a blind mule because, if he had been, he would have been angry at Dominguez. The jury found appellant guilty of money laundering and assessed his punishment at confinement for eight years.
On direct appeal, appellant argued that the evidence was insufficient to show that the currency constituted proceeds from the delivery of a controlled substance. The court of appeals disagreed and cited the amount of money, its packaging, Woods’s alert, and the testimony that appellant and Dominguez’s behavior and actions were consistent with that of drug-and-money couriers. 8 Appellant now argues that (1) the court of appeals erred in relying on the dog alert as evidence that the money was proceeds of delivery of a controlled substance, and (2) the evidence is otherwise insufficiеnt to prove such a nexus. We granted review to clarify that such an alert is probative evidence of a nexus and to emphasize that it is the “totality of facts,” — coupled with common sense inferences that can be made from those facts— that may support a finding that seized money is the “proceeds of criminal activity.”
II.
Under
Brooks v. State,
9
we review the sufficiency of the evidence establishing the elements of a criminal offense under the single sufficiency standard set out in
Jackson v. Virginia.
10
Under that standard, we view the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict and deter
A person commits money laundering if he knowingly transports the proceeds (cash) of criminal activity (delivery of drugs). 12 Frequently, there is no direct evidence that the cash seized constitutes such proceeds, but a criminal conviction may be based on circumstantial evidence. 13 “Circumstantial evidence is as probative as direct evidence in establishing the guilt of an actor, and circumstantial evidence alone can be sufficient to establish guilt.” 14 In such cases, it is not necessary that every fact and circumstance “point directly and independently to the defendant’s guilt; it is enough if the conclusion is warranted by the combined and cumulative forсe of all the incriminating circumstances.” 15 Furthermore, the trier of fact may use common sense and apply common knowledge, observation, and experience gained in ordinary affairs when drawing inferences from the evidence. 16
The narrow question before this Court, then, is whether the conclusion that the half a million dollars of cash in appellant’s truck was the proceeds of drug trafficking is warranted by the cumulative force of all the circumstantial evidence. Both forfeiture and money laundering eases are instructive as to what kind of evidence is relevant to show a nexus between money and drug dealing. Such evidence includes the following: a denial оf knowledge of the money,
17
a narcotics-dog alert on the money,
18
the amount of the money,
19
the packaging of the money,
20
the secret storage of the money,
21
the presence of illegal drugs,
22
and the presence of records of drug transactions.
23
Somewhat more controversially, courts have relied on travel on a known drug route
24
and couri
III.
The court of appeals held that the evidence was sufficient to support a finding that the half a million dollars of cash
• the large amount of cash — which would purchase a first-degree felony amount for drugs such as marihuana, cocаine, methamphetamine, or heroin;
• the currency’s being in vacuum-packed bundles designed to avoid detection by a drug dog;
• the drug dog’s alert to narcotics on the two vacuum-packed bags;
• courier profile evidence, including Trooper Moore’s testimony that a significant amount of drugs originate in Mexico, that he had made three significant seizures of drugs in loads coming from El Paso, and that he had seized money in trucks headed to El Paso; and
• the amicable conversation between appellant and Dominguez seen by Sheriff Halliburton while he was serving as bailiff. 27
Appellant takes issue with the court of appeals’s reliance on the positive canine alert to the money. He cites Winfrey v. State, a case in which we hinted at the lack of scientific foundation of human-scent discrimination lineups in which dogs differentiate among human scents in a “scent lineup.” 28 Noting that dog “scent lineups” are different from tracking and narcotics detection, we held that “scent lineups,” when used alone or as primary evidence, are legally insufficient to support a conviction. 29 Though we have not addressed the issue head on, there is some authority that such dog “scent lineups” are not rehable and should be excluded. 30
Appellant’s reliance on
Winfrey
is, however, misplaced. A drug-dog alert to the scent of narcotics on money is widely accepted in Texas as circumstantiаl evidence of a nexus between the money and drugs.
31
In this case, Sgt. Taylor testified that his yellow lab Woods has passed all his certifications and has been trained to alert on marijuana, heroin, cocaine, and methamphetamine. Sgt. Taylor placed bundles of the currency in two new duffel-type bags, and Sergeant Jody Tullos provided four bags that had not been around narcotics. Woods alerted on the two bags containing cash. This is circumstantial evidence of a link between the $502,020 and a drug deal.
Appellant argues that the “mere fact that the dog alerted to the money” does not itself prove that the money was proceeds of drug delivery and that “a dоg sniff without corroboration is insufficient evidence beyond a reasonable doubt concerning this crucial element.” 34 But there was more: The amount of the money, its packaging, and its location together constitute persuasive evidence that the money was related to drug trafficking. 35
A common sense reality of everyday life is that legitimate businesses do not transport large quantities of cash rubber-banded into bundles and stuffed into packages in a backpack. They don’t, because there are better, safer mеans of transporting cash if one is not trying to hide it from the authorities. Referring to the risk of carrying that much cash around, one of the agents testified, “that’s a rather unusual way to transport money, especially in the New York City area, not to take anything away from New York City.” Legitimate businesses wire cash between bank accounts or they convert large sums of cash into cashier’s checks....
Although the quantity of the cash alone is not enough to connect it to illegal drug transactions, it is a significant fact and weighs heavily in the ... calculus. As a matter of common knowledge and common sense, legitimate businesses usually do not transport this much cash by couriers. The same is not true of drug rings, which commonly do utilize couriers to transport in cash their ill gotten gains, which can be huge. The district court put it nicely: “One would be hard-pressed to encounter a dealer in narcotics who accepted a personal check or a credit card payment.” 37
But a dealer in narcotics would happily accept half a million dollars cash. Common sense tells us that a law-abiding truck
Second, packaging, especially that designed to fool the nose of a drug dog, is potent evidence from which it can be inferred that a nexus exists between money and drug aсtivity. 38 The packaging in this case — vacuum sealing — is widely regarded as indicating a conscious desire to prevent detection by drug dogs. 39 Trooper Moore — who has specialized training in drug interdiction — testified that the money is “vacuum-sealed” by narcotics traffickers for two reasons: “One would be to make it smaller, to better conceal it.... And two, to avoid detection from a [drug dog].” Deputy Winston Stephens, also trained in drug interdiction, stated that drug dealers “vacuum-seal it to cover the scent of narcotics .... ” Evidence that the $502,020 was vacuum-sealed is strong circumstantial evidence of a link between that money and drug trafficking. Here, as appellant aptly points out, there are no admissions, no drugs, and no prior connection to drugs. But the question is not what evidence there isn’t, it’s what evidence there is. And here there is evidence of an obvious attempt to prevent the money’s discovery.
Not only was the money vacuum-sealed, it was found in a secret compartment. Courts in numerous jurisdictions have relied on evidence of secret storage in finding a money-drugs nexus.
40
Trooper
As the court of appeals noted, this was not a dog-sniff-without-corroboration case. Not only was there evidence concerning the odor, amount, packaging and storage of the cash, other suspicious circumstances showing a drug-money nexus included the following:
• appellant did not know (or would not provide) his passenger’s last name— though the two had just traveled across the country and back, and he said that they went to high school together;
• appellant answered “no” to all of the questions that Trooper Moore asked him, but he broke eye contact when the trooper asked him about carrying a large sum of money;
• appellant had been in possession and control of the truck for five months;
• the logbook showed uninterrupted travel on a drug route known fоr significant seizures of drugs and cash (El Paso to Chicago and back);
• the star-headed screwdriver that fit the screws in the speaker mesh was found in the truck’s toolbox, and the screws on the right speaker were heavily tooled;
• appellant did not act surprised when the cash was found;
• there was no apparent legitimate origin for the half a million dollars;
• five cell phones were found in the truck;
• appellant and Dominguez appeared to have an amicable relationship even after their arrest and indictments.
In isolation, many of the facts relied on by the State could be characterized as only somewhat probative of whether appellant’s cache of cash was drug-delivery proceeds. 42 However, we do not consider evidenсe myopically or point out problems with the individual, separate facts underlying the State’s case because all of the evidence— both direct and circumstantial — must be evaluated as a whole by the reviewing court. 43 As one federal court explained,
[W]e look to the totality of the circumstances and do not try to pick them off, one by one, by conjuring up some alternative hypothesis of innocence to explain each circumstance in isolation. Finally, and most importantly, we do not take an academic or theoretical approach. Instead, we eschew clinical detachment and use a common sense view to the realities of normal life. 44
Examining thе totality of facts and applying “common experience considerations,” 45 we agree with the court of appeals that the jury could have reasonably concluded that the $502,020 found was — as appellant conceded in closing argument to the jury— “proceeds from the delivery of a controlled substance” as alleged in the indictment. We therefore affirm the judgment of the court of appeals.
Notes
. Appellant’s sole question for review is as follows:
Whether the court of appeals erred by holding that a dog sniff, positive for some type of controlled substance, of money is sufficient proof to establish that money was proceeds of deliveiy of a controlled substance?
.
Acosta v. State,
No. 11-11-00226-CR,
. Kankakee is 60 miles south of Chicago.
. When interviewed, appellant said that he had started his trip in El Paso and gone to Oklahoma to pick up a load, which he and Gus took to Illinois. They were returning from Illinois, heading back to El Paso. Appellant also said the truck-titled to Gastelum Produce out of El Paso, but leased by Texas Southwest Transport — had been in his control for the past five months, and that he was the only one who had keys to it.
.Trooper Moore testified that a significant amount of drugs originates in Mexico, that he had made three significant seizures of drugs in loads coming from El Paso, and that he had seized money in trucks headеd to El Paso.
.
Dominguez
v.
State
, — S.W.3d —,
. As was summarized by the court of appeals, appellant's
defense was that he was a "blind mule” and that Dominguez was the one guilty of money laundering. Trooper Moore acknowledged that he was aware of the term and its meaning: a "blind mule” is an innocent person duped by the drug cartels to transfer contraband without knowledge that he is carrying contraband. Appellant argued to the jury that the evidence only showed that "Gustavo Dominguez" was the person guilty of money laundering: Dominguez was unemployed, was traveling across the country without a commercial driver’s license, and was found guilty and sentenced to ten years in prison. Dominguez was the one who wrote a letter to Homeland Security seeking "his” money back. Apрellant points out that he made no admissions of guilt, that he denied knowledge of the money when questioned by the officers, that he was gainfully employed, that he had no criminal history, that he had fully cooperated with the officers, that he gave consent to search, and that he hauled a lawful load to Illinois and was returning to El Paso.
Acosta,
.
Acosta,
.
.
.
Jackson,
. Tex. Penal Code § 34.02(a)(1).
.
Miller v. State,
.
Hooper v. State,
.
Johnson v. State,
.
Booker
v.
State,
. It has been said, "A large sum of legitimate cash always has one or more proud parents but drug money, once it is seized by law enforcement, is often treated like an orphan child.”
United States v. $242,484.00,
. See infra notes 31-33.
. See infra notes 35-37.
. See infra notes 38-39.
. See infra note 40.
.
See Barron v. State,
.
See In re Two Hundred Seven Thousand Five Hundred Twenty-Three Dollars and Forty-Six Cents,
.
See State v. $11,014.00,
.
See United States v. Foster,
.
See Tran v. State,
.
See Acosta,
.
Winfrey v. State,
. Id. at 883-84.
.
State v. Smith,
.See Lee v. State,
.
See
Michael A. DiSabatino,
Evidence Considered in Tracing Currency, Bank Account, or Cash Equivalent to Illegal Drug Trafficking So As To Permit Forfeiture, or Declaration as Contraband, Under State Law
— Odor
of Drugs,
.
See United States v. Funds in Amount of Thirty Thousand Six Hundred Seventy Dollars,
Sergeant Taylor, when asked on cross-examination in this case about the "cash contamination theory,” said that he was aware of the theory, but noted that his dogs — including Woods — have been tested on untainted bank currency and have never alerted to it.
. Appellant's Brief at 11.
.
See Williams v. State,
Nos. 01-11-00017-CR, 01-11-00018-CR,
.
$217,590.00 In United States Currency v. State,
.
$242,484.00,
.
State
v.
$11,014.00,
.
$130,510.00 in U.S. Lawful Currency v. State,
.$43,774.00 U.S. Currency v. State,
.Trooper Moore testified that he had been trained to search in a manner to catch every natural void, so he knew where to look on the Freightliner.
Q: Do you typically, when you’re searching a Freightliner, look in thosе speakers?
A: Yes.
Q: Why is that?
A: Because I was trained that that was a good natural void.
Q: What do you mean by "natural void"?
A: Because there’s a cavity behind those speakers. You’ve got a cavity that runs across the whole back wall, towards the roof, and it’s a huge cavity.
. The unexplained presence of half a million dollars in cash behind a freight truck’s stereo speakers is, by itself, extremely suspicious. The larger the sum of secreted cash, the more likely its unexplained presence may be found to be proceeds from criminal activity.
.
Compare Powell v. State,
No. 04 — 11-00495-CR,
.
United States v. $242,484.00,
.
United States v. $250,000 in United States Currency,