Can a failure to alert a sniffing dog "negate" an otherwise adequate showing of probable cause?

Appellant has not cited any case that holds a dog's failure to alert can "negate" an otherwise adequate showing of probable cause, and such a conclusion would be unwarranted. A magistrate evaluating probable cause must look at the "totality of the circumstances," and a dog's failure to alert is simply one circumstance the magistrate should consider. As another court stated when faced with a similar argument, "The dog's failure to react does not . . . destroy the `probable cause' that would otherwise exist. It is just another element to be considered by the magistrate." (United States v. Jodoin (1st Cir. 1982) 672 F.2d 232, 236.) We conclude probable cause was not lacking simply because a drug sniffing dog that was on appellant's property several days prior to the search failed to alert to the presence of drugs.

B. Whether Trial Counsel Provided Ineffective Assistance

Appellant contends his conviction must be reversed because he received ineffective assistance of counsel.