K9 Alerts and Packages: Why You Need Strong Affidavits, Not Just the Dog

United States v. McCarley-Connin, U.S. 6th Cir. No. 24-3055 (Aug. 22, 2025)

Summary:

The Sixth Circuit affirmed denial of suppression motions in a postal package drug case. Defendant argued Florida v. Harris entitled him to an evidentiary hearing on the reliability of the canine that sniffed the packages. The court ruled Harris applies only to warrantless searches; for searches under a warrant, a defendant must seek a Franks hearing. Because McCarley-Connin didn’t, the evidence stood.

Facts:

In early 2021, postal inspectors in Cleveland flagged two packages—one outbound to California, one inbound from California—both tied to an address in Fostoria, Ohio. They showed classic red flags: costly cash-paid postage, no delivery signature, mismatched names/addresses. Inspector Brandon Holestine requested canine sniff tests. Detective Michael Twombly and his certified dog, Ciga, both times alerted.

Based on those alerts, inspectors obtained search warrants. The first package contained $19,660 in hidden cash; the second, over 1,000 grams of fentanyl disguised in dog food. Investigators arranged a sting, delivering a sham kilo to the house. McCarley-Connin and a woman retrieved it. Inside the residence, officers found cash, firearms, ammunition, and cell phones.

He was indicted for drug-trafficking and being a felon in possession of a firearm. He moved to suppress, arguing Harris entitled him to a hearing and use of extrinsic evidence challenging the dog’s reliability. The district court denied both motions, holding that without invoking Franks, he couldn’t pierce the warrant affidavit. He pled guilty, reserving his right to appeal.

Issues:

1. Does Florida v. Harris require courts to hold an evidentiary hearing on a drug dog’s reliability when the dog’s alert underpins a warrant affidavit?

2. Can a defendant introduce extrinsic evidence about a canine’s reliability to undermine a warrant affidavit absent a Franks showing?

Holding:

The Sixth Circuit held that Harris governs only warrantless searches. Once a magistrate has issued a warrant, the “four corners” rule applies unless the defendant qualifies for a Franks hearing. Because McCarley-Connin didn’t request one, the district court correctly denied suppression. Conviction affirmed.

Reasoning:

1. Fourth Amendment structure — Warrants require probable cause supported by oath. Courts review affidavits on a “four corners” basis. Allowing extrinsic evidence undermines the magistrate’s pre-search review.

2. Harris limited — Harris ensures a defendant can test a canine’s reliability in warrantless contexts, but doesn’t expand review of warrant affidavits.

3. Franks as the avenue — Only deliberate or reckless falsehoods in an affidavit trigger the right to an evidentiary hearing. Without such a showing, no review beyond the affidavit is allowed.

4. Precedent — Earlier Sixth Circuit cases (Ligon, Diaz, Hill) confirm this framework: warrantless = Harris; warrants = Franks.

5. Application — Ciga was certified and trained; the affidavits included that fact. With no showing of perjury or reckless disregard, the warrants stood.

Street Takeaways:

• Postal interdictions: Red-flag indicators (cash postage, odd routing, mismatched names) justify canine sniffs.

• Dog alerts: Certified dogs create presumptive probable cause.

• Warrants vs. warrantless: Harris challenges apply only to warrantless searches. For warrant cases, defense must use Franks.

• Investigative tip: Detailed canine certifications in affidavits strengthen probable cause.

• Officer note: Maintain records of training, certification, and deployments—critical for court reliability challenges.

Disclaimer:

This summary is for training and informational purposes only. It is not legal advice. Officers should consult legal counsel or prosecutors before applying these principles.