To determine whether a complaint complies with Supplemental Rules G(2)(f) and E(2)(a), courts "look to the totality of the evidence." United States v. Funds in the Amount of Thirty-Thousand Six Hundred Seventy Dollars, 403 F.3d 448, 455 (7th Cir. 2005); United States v. $12,480 in United States Currency, 510 F. Supp. 2d 167, 172 (D. Mass. 2007) (dismissing civil forfeiture action based on the totality of the circumstances).

To determine whether a complaint complies with Supplemental Rules G(2)(f) and E(2)(a), courts "look to the totality of the evidence." United States v. Funds in the Amount of Thirty-Thousand Six Hundred Seventy Dollars, 403 F.3d 448, 455 (7th Cir. 2005) ; United States v. $12,480 in United States Currency, 510 F. Supp. 2d 167, 172 (D. Mass. 2007) (dismissing civil forfeiture action based on the totality of the circumstances). VI. The Underlying Criminal Violations

The extent to which a drug dog's alert to currency demonstrates that the currency is the proceeds of a drug transaction is the source of some debate between federal courts. See, e.g., Thirty Thousand Six Hundred Seventy Dollars, 403 F.3d at 455-62 (overviewing the extensive literature on the reliability of dog drug detection on currency); United States v. $58,920 in U.S. Currency, 385 F. Supp. 2d 144, 153 (D.P.R. 2005) ("In fact, it has been demonstrated that as much as 70-80% of money in circulation may carry the residue of narcotics."); United States v. $12,840 in United States Currency, 510 F. Supp. 2d 167, 172 (D. Mass. 2007) ("[T]he only evidence connecting the cash in this case to a drug transaction is the barking of a dog which is, at best, of limited value."); United States v. Ten Thousand Seven HundredDollars in U.S. Currency, 258 F.3d 215, 230 (3d Cir. 2001) (noting that "several of our sister circuits recently have called into question the evidentiary significance of a positive reaction to currency in determining whether there is probable cause to forfeit the money in light of studies indicating that a large percentage of United States currency is contaminated with sufficient traces of drug residue to cause a canine to 'alert' to it"). A drug dog alert has been recognized by the Fifth Circuit as a factor that can be probative.

The authority Claimants cite concerns the analysis of evidence for judgment on the merits rather than judgment on the pleadings. See UnitedStates v. $5,000.00 in U.S. Currency, 40 F.3d 846 (6th Cir. 1994) (reversal of trial court decision granting summary judgment); United States v. One Hundred Thirty-Four Thousand Seven Hundred and Fifty Two Dollars United States Currency, More or Less, 706 F.Supp. 1075 (S.D.N.Y. 1987) (district court granted claimant's motion for summary judgment); United States v. $191,910 in U.S. Currency, 788 F.Supp. 1090 (N.D. Cal. 1992) (granted summary judgment); UnitedStates v. $12,840.00, 510 F. Supp. 2d 167 (D. Mass. 2007) (granting the claimant's renewed motion for summary judgment and/or to dismiss the forfeiture complaint after the government failed to conduct discovery after the deadline). Unlike the cases cited by Claimants, the Court is not adjudicating the case on the merits; rather, the Court is assessing whether the Government plead sufficient facts to support a reasonable belief it will be able to meet its burden of proof at trial.

Citing studies and expert testimony to the effect that a high percentage of the U.S. currency supply is contaminated with cocaine residue, some courts have found the "barking of a dog" — even a trained drug dog — to be "at best, of limited value" in making the required connection between particular currency and drug trafficking. United States v. $12,480 in U.S. Currency, 510 F. Supp. 2d 167, 171-72 (D. Mass. 2007; Gorton, J.); accord, United States v. $124,700 in U.S. Currency, 458 F.3d 822, 826 n. 1 (8th Cir. 2006);United States v $10,700.00 in U.S. Currency, 258 F. 3d 215, 229-30 (3d Cir. 2001) United States v. $506,231, 125 F.3d 442, 453 (7th Cir. 1997);United States v. $5,000 in U.S. Currency, 40 F.3d 846, 849 (6th Cir. 1994); Muhammed v. Drug Enforcement Agency, 92 F.3d 648, 653 (8th Cir. 1996); United States v. U.S. Currency, $30,060.00, 39 F.3d 1039, 1042 (9th Cir. 1994); United States v. $639,558 in U.S. Currency, 955 F.2d 712, 714 n. 3 (D.C. Cir. 1992); United States v. One Lot of Currency Totalling $14,665, 33 F. Supp. 2d 47, 57-58 (D. Mass. 1998; Gertner, J.).