ÿWPC˜ ødû*0IgIçÇ{FigGmÅ!/âù˜l½gÚ˜K²š¢žæó¦.Øo†-d<Î:/ ÕØÄÖq¼1JLü¨*©j"Öœ³iGª¾?i”‘c&+£›ý e·1ªˆ°[q •?ý/(q>æ”ÂËüE@Å 9Ýè‡X°”@ÆAfïÂ!Tã+!E~Žuγ¹¥¿î{ð9¹ž]ƒ5™ÊÒ§’±­’Žö«-–Ëm$O‚²刘†y¼ÌÖ$ÌW…¤9xxG=,Èö:1¶.c ÜуÊ^’¼Ñwu8¬W•{NóF Â×ÝÄ?ä1þ¨6#¦Í }MEÄúüñV“߬úõ#3<3I‹ïŸY7Èžœü.‚®½taL™rÛ”ø8rˆ)µ@&…TÒ¸ƒº$]u½ÍQŠ ³ÜÏvq²2“PløæJîFY˜VŒ’È–yùûm–‹ËÔùyS¹iði<#|˽1ÔÅÀrµÍàY´›¥pš`º¿šz^…D€qYÆLªF†kn¤ä喙¥Ò€wøîÙ¨+êVƒ’X¼ìHzIÚ%íš5YMݬ|ØwíL.Út–Òåý8L0*©_”¬­PQ& X=7À±…UBF %ˆ U.Ž ¼ nXÌ 0P$ 4t ˆ 0Ò 0cb w@Å U: U:? U:y O³ ãU:åãU:#<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< B______ D3||| 0D¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ AOóÆBB 0D D/L B{<þ6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpiX%ä2¼A`ArialTT3|X«<þ6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpiXXxþ6X@ÉJQX@%ä2¼A`ArialTTt10cpiXXXä2¼P±ŠQXP((­À$¡¡ÒD°ÒÒ¦°ÒÓ  ÓuM%(‚(2y·$¤¤Ý ƒ­À!ÝÒD°ÒÒ¦°ÒÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ€ôm§ôXXÔÔ€ô¤Öôôôm§Ôà œ àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó("ˆ$Ô€ X<=XXXÔòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó D  D D  Ó€g"Arial Regular,†r‰AZ‹"Arial Regular,†r‰AZ‹"Arial Regular EÝ ƒ '$ÝÒD°ÒÒ¦°ÒÓ  ÓÔ€ô_ôXXÔÔ€ôľôôô_Ôà œ àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝThe€Colorado€Supreme€Court€has€noted,€Ð `  ÐÌà8 œ àRequiring€ð ða€formal€recitation€of€a€police€dogððs€curriculum€vitaeðð€could€lead€to€endlessÏchallenges€to€the€facial€sufficiency€of€affidavits€based€on€the€failure€to€include€in€minuteÏdetail€information€of€dubious€value€about€the€background€of€the€dog€involved.€€For€muchÏthe€same€reason€we€reject€the€assertion€that€common€sense€is€incapable€of€supplyingÏthe€connection€between€the€dogððs€reaction€to€the€safe,€as€described€in€the€affidavit,€andÏthe€inference€that€the€safe€contained€drugs.Ð œ Ú"œ Ú" ÐÌòòPeople€v.€Unruhóó,€713€P.2d€370,€382€(Colo.€1986)(citation€omitted). ÙÔ€X†XXXÔÔ€™i XX†ÔÓ  Óò òÔ Ad ÔFILEDÔ€X†X ™iÔÐ  ÐÌMay€5,€1999ÌÌCecil€W.€CrowsonÌAppellate€Court€ClerkÔdAMÔó ó,c½¬AZ‹"Arial Regular ÙÔ€X†XXXÔÔ€™i XX†ÔÓ  Óò òÔ Ad ÔFILEDÔ€X†X ™iÔÐ  ÐÌMay€4,€1999ÌÌCecil€W.€CrowsonÌAppellate€Court€ClerkÔdAMÔó ó,c½¬AZ‹"Arial Regular Ý ƒ '$ÝÒD°ÒÒ¦°ÒÓ  ÓÔ€ô_ôXXÔÔ€ôľôôô_Ôà œ àòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ‡ ôľôôôľÔThis€€is€not€an€ordinary€one„dog€drug„sniffing€case.€€This€is€a€two„dog€case,€with€one€drug€dogÐ `  Ðindependently€corroborating€the€other.€€Although€the€defendant€argues€that€one€unreliable€source€cannotÏcorroborate€another,€nothing€indicates€that€Robbie€and€Stallone€were€unreliable.€€Ô#†ôľôô ôľ©#Ô d$$$$'ÿÿdxd(3¯$££Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ­À!ÝÒD°ÒÒ¦°ÒÓ  ÓÝ  Ýñ ñ›ñ ñÑ` °ÑÑX°ÑÒPDÒÒŽ¦ÒÑ  ÑÑTR[  AØ'Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑÓ  ÓÔ€Xi°XXXÔÑ7€ i° XXdðdÈ7Ññññ ñßr€*<,(j 8` `€€@Eêf ` 8ttxP"` ð  rßñ ñññññßr€*<,(j 8` `€€@Eêf ` 8ttxP"` ð  rßñññ ñ›ñ ñà ¨ àà àò òIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌÌà@uu:MàAT€NASHVILLEˆÌÌÓ  Óà@””6MàJANUARY€1999€SESSIONˆÌÌÌÌó óÌò òSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,à ° àà  àà ` à)ó óÐ Ðp  Ðà ¨ àà àà X àà ° àà  àà ` àò ò)ó óà ¸ àò òC.C.A.€NO.€01C01„9712„CR„00582ó óÐ À`  Ðà ¨ àà àAppellee,à ° àò ò€€€€€à  àà ` à)Ð °P  Ðà ¨ àà àà X àà ° àà  àà ` à)à ¸ àDAVIDSON€COUNTYó óÐ  @  ÐVS.à ¨ àà àà X àà ° àà  àà ` àò ò)Ð 0  Ðà ¨ àà àà X àà ° àà  àà ` à)à ¸ àHON.€ANN€LACY€JOHNS,Ð €  ÐCHARLES€R.€MENCER,à ° àà  àà ` à)à ¸ àJUDGEÐ p Ðà ¨ àà àà X àà ° àà  àà ` à)à ¸ àó ó€ò òÐ ` Ðà ¨ àà àó óAppellant.ò òà ° àà  àà ` à)à ¸ àó ó(Suppression€of€Evidence)ò òÐ Pð Ðó óÌÌÌòòFOR€THE€APPELLANT:óóà ° àà  àà ` à€€€€€òòà ¸ àFOR€THE€APPELLEE:óóÐ ° ÐÌÌò òJOHN€S.€COLLEY,€IIIà ° àà  àà ` àà ¸ àJOHN€KNOX€WALKUPÐ à€ Ðó óP.O.€Box€1476à X àà ° àà  àà ` àà ¸ àAttorney€General€&€ReporterÐ Ð p ÐColumbia,€TN€38402Ìà ¨ àà àà X àà ° àò òà  àà ` àà ¸ àDARYL€J.€BRANDó óÐ °"P Ðà ¨ àà àà X àà ° àà  àà ` àà ¸ àAsst.€Attorney€GeneralÌò òà ¨ àà àó óà X àà ° àà  àà ` àà ¸ àJohn€Sevier€Bldg.Ð $0 Ðà ¨ àà àà X àà ° àà  àà ` àà ¸ à425€Fifth€Ave.,€Northà ! àà p# à€€€€€€Ð €%  Ðà ¨ àà àà X àà ° àà  àà ` àà ¸ àNashville,€TN€€37243„0493Ìà ¨ àÌà ¨ àà àà X àà ° àà  àà ` àà ¸ àò òVICTOR€S.€JOHNSON,€IIIó óÐ P(ð! Ðà ¨ àà àà X àà ° àà  àà ` àà ¸ àDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÌÌà ¨ àà àà X àà ° àò òà  àà ` àà ¸ àKYMBERLY€HAASó óÐ  +À!$ Ðà ¨ àà àà X àà ° àà  àà ` àà ¸ àAsst.€District€Attorney€GeneralÌà ¨ àà àà X àà ° àà  àà ` àà ¸ àWashington€Square,€Suite€500Ìà ¨ àà àà X àà ° àà  àà ` àà ¸ à222€Second€Ave.,€NorthÌà ¨ àà àà X àà ° àà  àà ` àà ¸ àNashville,€TN€37201Ìà ¨ àà àà X àà ° àà  àà ` àÌà ¨ àà àà X àà ° àÌOPINION€FILED:____________________ÌÌÌÌò òAFFIRMEDó óÐ p5,/ ÐÌÌò òJOHN€H.€PEAY,ó óÐ @8à.2 ÐJudgeÌÐ   :À04§ ÐÑXÑÓ  Óà@™™:Màò òòòÔ‡¼,¼XXi°ÔO€P€I€N€I€O€NÔ#†Xi°X¼¼,ã#ԈР`  ÐÌÌó óóóÌÓÓà ¨ àà àThe€defendant€was€charged€in€the€indictment€with€possession€with€intentÏto€sell€or€deliver€ten€to€seventy€pounds€of€marijuana.€€He€filed€a€motion€to€suppress€theÏmarijuana,€which€was€denied.€€The€defendant€then€entered€a€œguilty€plea,›€properlyÏpreserving€for€appeal€two€certified€questions€that€the€parties€and€the€trial€court€agreedÏwere€dispositive€of€this€case.€€He€now€presents€one€of€those€issues€on€appeal,€that€is,Ïwhether€a€search€warrant€affidavit€that€relies€upon€positive€ð ðalertsðð€to€drugs€by€two€trainedÏdrug€dogs€must€include€specific€statements€regarding€the€drug€dogsðð€training,€pastÏperformance,€and€experience€in€order€to€establish€probable€cause.€€We€affirm€the€trialÏcourtððs€order€denying€his€motion€to€suppress.ÌÌà ¨ àà àAccording€to€the€evidence€at€the€suppression€hearing,€Drug€EnforcementÏAgent€(DEA)€Mark€Lockwood,€who€was€on€duty€at€the€Nashville€International€Airport,Ïreceived€a€call€from€an€agent€at€the€Houston€airport.€€Agent€Lockwood€testified€theÏHouston€agent€had€told€him€that€a€drug€detection€dog€had€positively€ð ðalertedðð€for€narcoticsÏin€the€suitcase€of€a€passenger€flying€to€Nashville.€€The€tag€on€the€suitcase€reflected€theÏname€ð ðRicky€Miller,ðð€who€had€flown€from€Nashville€to€Houston€earlier€that€same€day€andÏhad€been€scheduled€to€return€to€Nashville€on€a€4:35€p.m.€flight€but€had€changed€his€flightÏto€5:45€p.m.ÌÌà ¨ àà àAgent€Lockwood€testified€he€first€saw€the€defendant€arrive€at€the€incomingÏflightððs€gate€in€Nashville€at€7:40€p.m.,€while€at€the€same€time€in€the€baggage€tunnel,€aÏsecond€drug€detection€dog€indicated€the€presence€of€narcotics€in€the€suspected€suitcase.€ÏAgent€Lockwood€testified€he€and€other€agents€followed€the€defendant€from€the€gate€toÐ †6&-0 Ðthe€baggage€carousel,€where€the€defendant€retrieved€the€suspected€suitcase.€€AccordingÐ †6&-2 Ðto€Agent€Lockwood,€he€and€the€other€agents€approached€the€defendant,€identifiedÏthemselves,€and€asked€to€see€the€defendantððs€personal€identification,€which€reflected€theÏlast€name€ð ðMencer.ðð€€When€asked€whether€the€suitcase€he€was€carrying€was€his,€theÏdefendant€looked€puzzled,€said€ð ðWell,€maybe€it€isnððt,ðð€and€put€down€the€bag.€€The€namesÏon€the€luggage€tag€and€the€defendantððs€identification€were€different,€but€the€address€onÏthe€luggage€tag€and€the€address€on€the€identification€œwññasññññereññ›€the€same.ÌÌà ¨ àà àAgent€Lockwood€testified€he€asked€the€defendant€if€he€would€consent€to€aÏsearch€of€his€suitcase€and€the€defendant€replied,€ð ðNo.€€Iððd€like€to€speak€to€my€attorney.ðð€ÏThe€defendant€agreed,€however,€to€accompany€the€agents€to€the€airport€drug€interdictionÏoffice.€€On€the€way€there,€the€defendant€asked€for€his€òòMirandaóó€rights€to€be€read€to€him,Ð Xø Ðand€an€agent€complied.€€Once€at€the€office,€Agent€Lockwood€again€asked€the€defendantÏto€consent€to€a€search€of€his€suitcase,€and€again€the€defendant€declined,€asking€to€speakÏto€his€attorney.€€Within€five€minutes,€the€defendant€was€allowed€to€call€his€attorney.€€InÏthe€meantime,€however,€a€NCIC€computer€check€revealed€an€outstanding€arrest€warrantÏfor€the€defendant€issued€by€the€Nashville€Metro€Police€Department€in€an€unrelated€case.€ÏThe€defendant€was€placed€under€arrest€on€this€unrelated€arrest€warrant.ÌÌà ¨ àà àAgent€Lockwood€testified€that€because€they€were€investigating€whether€theÏdefendant€was€transporting€narcotics,€they€decided€to€delay€transporting€the€defendantÏfor€processing€on€the€unrelated€arrest€warrant€until€they€could€execute€a€search€warrantÏto€search€the€defendantððs€suitcase.€€While€the€defendant€waited€at€the€airport€drugÏinterdiction€office,€the€agents€prepared€the€search€warrant.€€The€affidavit€in€support€of€theÏsearch€warrant€reads,€in€pertinent€part,€as€follows:ÌÌÓÓà8 ¨ àON€JANUARY€11,€1996,€OFFICER€JAMES€GOODMAN€AND€OTHERÏMEMBERS€OF€THE€DRUG€INTERDICTION€UNIT€AT€THE€NASHVILLE,Ð 27Ò-3 ÐTN€AIRPORT€RECEIVED€INFORMATION€FROM€OFFICER€SUSANÏHUGHES€OF€THE€HOUSTON€HOBBY€DRUG€INTERDICTION€UNIT.€€THEÏINFORMATION€WAS€IN€REGARD€TO€A€PERSON€FLYING€FROMÏHOUSTON€HOBBY€TO€NASHVILLE,€TN.€€ON€SOUTHWEST€AIRLINESÏFLIGHT€#€649.€€[sic]€€FLIGHT€649€WAS€SCHEDULED€TO€ARRIVE€INÏNASHVILLE,€TN€AT€7:30€PM,€AND€DID€ARRIVE€AT€7:40€P.M.€€OFFICERÏHUGHES€RELAYED€TO€NASHVILLE€OFFICERS€THAT€THE€SUBJECTÏWAS€FLYING€UNDER€THE€NAME€OF€RICK€MILLER,€AND€PROVIDED€AÏDESCRIPTION€OF€THE€SUBJECT.€€OFFICER€HUGHES€FURTHERÏADVISED€THAT€THE€MANNER€IN€WHICH€THIS€SUBJECT€HADÏCONDUCTED€HIMSELF€AT€THE€HOUSTON€AIRPORT€WAS€OF€AÏSUSPICIOUS€NATURE€IN€THAT€THE€SUBJECT€HAD€FIRST€BOOKEDÏTHE€FLIGHT€SCHEDULED€TO€DEPART€AT€4:30€PM,€BUT€HADÏCHANGED€TO€A€LATER€FLIGHT,€EVEN€THOUGH€HE€WAS€AT€THEÏAIRPORT€IN€TIME€TO€MAKE€THE€EARLIER€FLIGHT.€€OFFICERÏHUGHES€ALSO€ADVISED€THAT€THE€PERSON€KNOWN€AS€MILLER€ATÏTHIS€TIME€HAD€CHECKED€ONE€PIECE€OF€LUGGAGE€AND€HUGHESÏPROVIDED€YOUR€AFFIANT€WITH€A€DESCRIPTION€OF€THE€LUGGAGE.€ÏBECAUSE€OF€THE€SUSPICIOUS€NATURE€OF€MILLERððS€(LATERÏIDENTIFIED€AS€MENCER)€ACTIONS€OFFICER€HUGHES€HAD€A€DRUGÏDETECTING€CANINE,€ð ðROBBIEðð,€TO€[sic]€SNIFF€THE€LUGGAGE€INÏQUESTION€FOR€THE€PRESENCE€OF€NARCOTICS€INSIDE€THEÏLUGGAGE.€€OFFICER€HUGHES€ADVISED€YOUR€AFFIANT€THATÏTRAINED€DRUG€DOG,€ð ðROBBIEðð,€DID€INDICATE€POSITIVE€FOR€THEÏPRESENCE€OF€NARCOTICS.€€BASED€ON€THIS€INFORMATION,ÏOFFICERS€OF€THE€NASHVILLE€AIRPORT€DETAIL€MET€SOUTHWESTÏFLIGHT€649€UPON€ITS€ARRIVAL€IN€œNASHVILLE,TNññ€ññ›œññ[sic]ññ.›€€OFFICERS€INÏNASHVILLE€WERE€ABLE€TO€LOCATE€THE€BAG€IN€QUESTION,€AS€ITÏARRIVED€IN€THE€BAGGAGE€AREA.€€CANINE€OFFICER€RICKYÏWINFREY€AND€HIS€TRAINED€DRUG€DOG€STALLONE€CONDUCTED€AÏSECOND€SNIFF€OF€THE€SUSPECT€LUGGAGE€THAT€HAD€BEENÏCHECKED€BY€MILLER(AKA€MENCER)€œññ[sic]ññññ›€ññIN›€HOUSTON.€€THE€TRAINEDÏDRUG€DOG€STALLONE€INDICATED€POSITIVE€FOR€THE€PRESENCEÏOF€NARCOTIC€ODOR€COMING€FROM€THE€LUGGAGE.€€BASED€ON€THEÏABOVE€LISTED€INFORMATION,€THE€AFFIANT€BELIEVES€PROBABLEÏCAUSE€DOES€EXIST€FOR€THE€ISSUANCE€OF€A€SEARCH€WARRANT.€ÓøÓÐ ¨ ò"¨ ò" ÐAt€approximately€10:50€p.m.,€the€signed€search€warrant€was€returned€to€the€airport€drugÏinterdiction€office,€where€the€defendant€was€waiting.€€The€search€of€his€suitcase€revealedÏtwo€packages€of€marijuana€wrapped€in€duct€tape,€each€weighing€approximately€tenÏpounds.ÌÌà ¨ àà àThe€defendant€argues€that€the€affidavit€is€insufficient€because€it€fails€toÏestablish€the€dogsðð€reliability€in€detecting€drugs.€€According€to€the€defendant,€the€dogsððÏreliability€should€have€been€established€in€the€affidavit€with€information€regarding€theÐ 27Ò-3 Ðdogsðð€training,€breeding,€past€performance€in€detecting€narcotics,€experience,Ïcertification,€ð ðpointingðð€techniques,€and€ð ðother€qualifications€which€would€give€rise€to€aÏprobable€cause€finding€based€on€their€actions/reactions.ðð€€The€defendant€contends€thatÏbecause€the€affidavit€did€not€contain€such€information,€the€portion€of€the€affidavitÏregarding€the€drug€detecting€dogs€ð ðhittingðð€or€positively€indicating€that€his€suitcaseÏcontained€narcotics€must€be€disregarded.€€Without€this€information€in€the€affidavit,€theÏdefendant€concludes,€the€affidavit€fails€to€show€probable€cause,€and€accordingly,€theÏmarijuana€found€during€the€search€must€be€suppressed.ÌÌà ¨ àà àThis€is€a€case€of€first€impression€in€Tennessee.€€A€panel€of€our€Court€hasÏpreviously€held€that€the€State€had€proven€probable€cause€for€a€warrantless€search€byÏintroducing€evidence€that€a€trained€narcotics€detection€dog€certified€by€the€United€StatesÏPolice€K„9€Association€had€ð ðalertedðð€for€the€presence€of€narcotics€in€a€vehicle€lawfullyÏstopped€for€violation€of€a€license€plate€lighting€law.€€òòState€v.€Dennis€R.€Englandóó,€No.Ð ¼ \ Ð01C01„9702„CR„00064,€Sumner€County€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€filed€March€31,€1998,€atÏœNashville),ññ€ññññ€òòrev.€grantedóó€(Tenn.€January€19,€1999)ññ(citing›€òòState€v.€James€Smith,€Jr.óó,€No.€38,€Shelby€County€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.Ð T$ô Ðfiled€December€14,€1988,€at€Jackson)(holding€that€an€affidavit€including€information€fromÏtwo€anonymous€callers€and€stating€that€a€trained€and€ð ðreliable€drug€dogðð€had€detectedÏdrugs€in€a€vehicle€provided€probable€cause€to€issue€a€search€œwarrant))ññ€ñññ ñññ€ñññ ñññòòrev.€grantedóóÐ ¸)X $ Ð(Tenn.€January€19,€1999)ññ.€€No›€Tennessee€appellate€court,€however,€has€œpreviouslyÏconsidered€our€issue€here,›€i.e.,€œwhether€a€search€warrant€affidavit€that€characterizesÏnarcotics€dogs€as€ð ðtrained€drug€dogsðð€sufficiently€delineates€the€dogsðð€training€andÏreliability€in€detecting€drugs€and€thus€establishes€probable€cause,€even€though€theÏaffidavit€does€not€delineate€the€particulars€of€the€dogsðð€training,€experience,€and€pastÏperformance.›ÌÐ L6ì,2 Ðà ¨ àà àA€magistrateððs€decision€to€issue€a€search€warrant€requires€the€exercise€ofÏjudicial€discretion,€and€his€or€her€judgment€is€entitled€to€great€deference.€€òòState€v.€Melsonóó,Ð , Ì Ð638€S.W.2d€342,€357€(Tenn.€1982);€òòHampton€v.€Stateóó,€148€Tenn.€155,€252€S.W.€1007Ð ø ˜ Ð(1923).€€Even€so,€an€appellate€court€may€invalidate€a€search€warrant€when€the€contentÏof€the€underlying€affidavit€is€insufficient€as€a€matter€of€law€to€satisfy€the€constitutionalÏrequirements€of€probable€cause.€€òòState€v.€Longstreetóó,€619€S.W.2d€97,€98„99€(Tenn.Ð \ü  Ð1981).ÌÌà ¨ àà àIn€reviewing€a€search€warrant€affidavit€for€probable€cause,€we€must€read€theÏlanguage€ð ðin€a€commonsense€and€practical€manner,ðð€òòMelsonóó,€638€S.W.2d€at€357,€andÐ Œ, Ðthe€affiantððs€words€should€be€given€their€natural€meaning€and€interpretation,€òòState€v.Ð Xø ÐSmithóó,€477€S.W.2d€6,€8€(Tenn.€1972);€òòState€v.€William€Dorris€Bucy,€IIóó,€No.€02C01„9709„Ð $Ä ÐCC„00363,€Henry€County€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€filed€December€10,€1998,€at€Jackson).€€€€TheÏprobability€of€criminal€activity,€not€a€prima€facie€showing€of€a€crime,€is€the€standard€forÏprobable€cause.€€òòBeck€v.€Ohioóó,€379€U.S.€89,€96€(1964).Ð ˆ"( ÐÌà ¨ àà àAlthough€the€defendant€urges€us€to€follow€cases€of€different€jurisdictionsÏthat€require€varying€specifics€regarding€a€drug€dogððs€training€and€certification,€we€areÏpersuaded€by€the€holding€in€a€United€States€Sixth€Circuit€case.€€In€òòUnited€States€v.€Berryóó,Ð ¸)X $ Ð90€F.3d€148,€150€(6th€Cir.€1996),€the€defendant€challenged€a€search€warrant€affidavit€thatÏstated€a€ð ðððdrug€sniffing€or€drug€detecting€dogðð€ððreacted€or€alertedðð€to€defendantððsÐ P-ð#( Ðautomobile,€indicating€the€probable€presence€of€controlled€substances€within€the€vehicle.€ÏFurther,€the€affidavit€stated€that€the€dog€and€its€handler€ððhave€both€been€trained,€qualifiedÐ è0ˆ', Ðin€the€processes€and€procedures€required€to€properly€conduct€such€[narcotic]Ïinvestigations.ðððð€€òòId.óó€€Berry€moved€to€suppress€the€drugs€that€were€found€pursuant€to€theÐ €4 +0 Ðsearch€warrant,€œñ ñwhichñ ññ ñbut€his€motionñ ñ›€was€denied.€€òòId.óó€at€153.€€He€then€appealed,€arguing€thatÐ L6ì,2 Ðthe€affidavit€in€support€of€the€search€warrant€was€insufficient€because€it€failed€to€establishÏtheÏdogððsÏð ðreliability€and€credibility.ðð€€€òòId.óó€€Relying€on€other€federal€circuit€cases,€the€SixthÐ , Ì ÐCircuit€determined:ÌÓÓà8 ¨ àContrary€to€defendantððs€suggestion,€to€establish€probable€cause,€theÏaffidavit€need€not€describe€the€particulars€of€the€dogððs€training.€€Instead,€theÏaffidavitððs€accounting€of€the€dog€sniff€indicating€the€presence€of€controlledÏsubstances€and€its€reference€to€the€dogððs€training€in€narcotics€investigationsÏwas€sufficient€to€establish€the€dogððs€training€and€reliability.€òòSeeóó€òòUnitedÐ \ü  ÐStates€v.€Danielóó,€982€F.2d€146,€151€n.7€(5th€Cir.€1993)€(rejectingÐ Bâ  Ðdefendantððs€argument€that€an€affidavit€must€show€how€reliable€a€drug„¼detecting€dog€has€been€in€the€past€in€order€to€establish€probable€cause);Ð ®  ÐòòUnited€States€v.€Venemaóó,€563€F.2d€1003,€1007€(10th€Cir.€1977)(stating€thatÐ ô”  Ðan€affidavit€in€support€of€a€search€warrant€need€not€describe€the€drug„¼detecting€dogððs€educational€background€and€general€qualifications€withÏspecificity€to€establish€probable€cause).Ð ¨ ò"¨ ò" ÐÌÓ<ÓòòId.óó;€òòseeóó€òòUnited€States€v.€Cookóó,€No.€89„5947,€1990€WL€70703€(6th€Cir.€May€29,Ð r М1990)(unpublished)(holding›€that€an€affidavit€stated€probable€cause€by€referring€to€drug„¼sniffing€dogs€as€ð ðnarcotic€dog€Moose€and€narcotic€dog€Banditðð€because€such€referencesÏreasonably€implied€training).׃×Ý ƒ ˆÝÔ€ XïCXXXïCÔòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ð Öv ÐÌà ¨ àà àIn€this€case,€the€affidavit€included€the€words€ð ðtrained€drug€dogðð€to€describeÏRobbie€and€Stallone,€and€one€of€the€dogs,€Robbie,€was€also€described€as€a€ð ðdrugÏdetecting€canine.ðð€€The€affidavit€specifically€stated€that€both€dogs€had€positively€indicatedÏthe€presence€of€narcotic€odor€emanating€from€the€defendantððs€œsuitcase.€€We€believe€thisÏinformation€was€sufficient€to€establish€the€dogsðð€training€and€reliabilityñøñ€in€this€caseñøñ.€€òòSeeóóÐ ž*>!% ÐòòÔ‡XïCXX XïCÔBerryóó,€90€F.3d€at€153.Ô#† XïCXXXïCûC#ÔÐ j, #' ÐÐ 6.Ö$) Ðà ¨ àà àñùñMoreover,€gñùññúñGñúñiven€ñûñthis€as€well€as€the€ñûññüñall€theñüññýñotherñýñ€information€contained€in€the€affidavit,€aÏmagistrate€exercising€judicial€discretion€could€find€probable€cause€to€issue€a€searchÏwarrant.€€In€addition€to€independent€ð ðalertsðð€by€two€drug€dogs,׃×Ý ƒ ˆÝÔ€ XïCXX XïCÔòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€the›€affidavit€stated€that€theÐ ø ˜ Ðdefendant€had€acted€peculiarly€by€booking€a€flight€scheduled€to€depart€at€4:30€p.m.€œandÏthen›€changing€to€a€later€flight,€even€though€he€was€at€the€airport€in€ample€time€to€makeÏthe€earlier€flight.€€The€affidavit€œalso€contained›€facts€that€the€defendant€was€traveling€underÏa€false€name,€although€the€address€on€his€luggage€tag€was€œcorrect.€€This€information€isÏsufficient€to€establish€probable€cauñõñsñõñeñ÷ñ€in€this€caseñ÷ñ.ñöñavit,€a€magistrate€exercising€judicial€discretion€could€find€probable€cause€to€issue€a€search€warrant.ñöñ€€ÌÌà ¨ àà àFinding€that€the€language€of€the€search€warrant€sufficiently€established€theÏdrug€dogsðð€reliability€and€that€the›€œaffidavit›€established€probable€cause€to€issue€a€searchÏwarrant,€we€affirm€the€trial€courtððs€order€denying€the€defendantððs€motion€to€suppress.€€TheÏdefendantððs€conviction€and€sentence€œare›€affirmed.ÌÌÓÓà ¨ àà àà X àà ° àà  àà ` àà ¸ à_______________________________Ìà ¨ àà àà X àà ° àà  àà ` àà ¸ àJOHN€H.€PEAY,€JudgeÌÌœñÿñÌÌñÿñCONCUR:›ÌÌÌÌ______________________________ÌJERRY€L.€SMITH,€JudgeÌÌÌÌ______________________________ÌTHOMAS€T.€WOODALL,€Judge