Be wary of defense
attorneys who are
skilled at manipulating
language, and be
prepared to disable
misleading questions.
When Does Drug Odor
by Ted Daus
n a review of recent case law, in which I focused
on a trend toward statistical analysis of K- 9 team
deployments versus real finds of actual drugs, I was
forced to examine what factors have led America’s
K- 9 handlers to the precarious position in which they
find themselves. Unfortunately, I have discovered that
in many cases, the biggest factor has been the K- 9
handler himself. All too often, casual use of terms or
casual testimony during a motion to suppress has led
police K- 9 officers into this troubling area.
Canine officers often testify in front of judges who
have little working knowledge of how a K- 9 officer performs his duties, let alone how a dog is trained to alert
I
to drug odor. Most judges’
frame of reference about
how dogs work or perform is their current or
childhood pets. The lack
of foundational information about subject matter
that is critical to the case
over which the judge is
presiding is clearly one of
the causes of our problem. A “Dog Training 101”
course is not offered as
part of the law school
curriculum. Handlers are
questioned by lawyers
who sometimes know
even less than judges.
These factors can contribute to an extremely
frustrating experience on the witness stand for the
handler. That is why it is imperative that the handler dot every “i” and cross every “t” when testifying in court. Educating not only the defense
attorney and the prosecutor, but also the judge, is
an essential element in a courtroom victory. Being
thorough and patient with your courtroom testimony and not becoming sarcastic or combative
with the defense attorney is the desired approach.
There is a reason why they say “You’ll catch more
flies with a teaspoon of honey than with a barrel of
vinegar” — because it is true.
