United States v. Marisol Perez-Almonte

MEMORANDUM

Defendant Marisol Perez-Almonte appeals her conviction for conspiracy to distribute cocaine, challenging the district court’s denial of her suppression and discovery motions. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we affirm.

First, Perez argues that the district court erred in denying her motion to suppress. We review de novo the denial of a motion to suppress, United States v. Jones, 286 F.3d 1146, 1150 (9th Cir.2002), and review a district court’s factual findings for clear error. United States v. Berber-Tinoco, 510 F.3d 1083, 1087 (9th Cir.2007). We may affirm on any ground supported by the record. See United States v. Miller, 822 F.2d 828, 833 (9th Cir.1987).

All parties agree that a positive alert from a drug-detection dog, on its own, provides probable cause to search a vehicle so long as the drug dog is “well trained” or, put another way, its “reliability” has been established. See United States v. Lingenfelter, 997 F.2d 632, 639 (9th Cir.1993).

The district court did not clearly err in finding Cookie, the troopers’ drug-detection dog, reliable. Trooper Costanzo testified at length as to Cookie’s training and certification, as well as to her…