A Defendant Challenged Evidence From Police Dogs. It Did Not Go Well
Courts should consider a cadaver dog's work experience when deciding whether to admit evidence, according to this Fourth District Court of Appeal ruling.
April 22, 2020 at 04:40 PM
3 minute read
The Fourth District Court of Appeal Wednesday found that not all police dogs are created equal when it became the first appellate court in Florida to consider the admissibility of evidence from cadaver dogs — trained to detect the smell of human remains.
Weighing in on a second-degree murder conviction, the appellate panel ruled that courts must consider the reliability and work history of a dog on a case-by-case basis before admitting evidence of its sniffing assignments and related testimony into trial.
"Courts should not merely assume that any well-trained dog can detect specific odors, but instead should understand that a dog's abilities, whether innate or acquired, is a fact which may be proven by evidence like any other fact," the opinion said.
While cadaver dog evidence can help convict murder suspects, critics claim it could also be unreliable.
Wednesday's opinion stemmed from the case of Miramar man Cid Torrez, serving a life sentence for killing his estranged wife in 2012, though her body has still not been found.
Investigators brought in a cadaver dog called Canine Jewel after finding blood stains in Torrez's home, according to the opinion, which said the dog reacted to a grassy area near the front door several times and picked out the defendant's car from a line up months later. Jewel repeatedly alerted to the floor of the trunk and the back seat, while a black Labrador called Canine Piper reacted to the outside of the back door and the trunk in a separate search.
Before jurors found Torrez guilty, he had argued that evidence and related testimony didn't meet scientific admissibility standards, but Broward Circuit Judge Lisa Porter disagreed.
That was the right call, according to the Fourth DCA, which looked to the Daubert evidence standard governing the use of expert witness testimony, and to a U.S. Supreme Court case involving dogs trained to find drugs. In 2013, Florida v. Harris held that "[E]vidence of a dog's satisfactory performance in a certification or training program can itself provide sufficient reason to trust his alert."
In this case, the Fourth DCA found Jewel, Piper and their handlers had adequate work experience. Jewel and her handler became certified by the North American Police Working Dog Association in 2007 after completing between 400 and 500 hours of specialist training, and achieved recertification every year. The dog's handler said Jewel had only ever come to the wrong conclusion in one case.
Piper's handler also testified that in their nine years together, the dog had never failed to get certified.
Circumstantial evidence also corroborated the dogs' findings, according to the ruling.
West Palm Beach Public Defender Carey Haughwout and Assistant Public Defender Tatjana Ostapoff represent the defendant. Florida Attorney General Ashley Moody and Assistant Attorney General Rachael Kaiman in West Palm Beach represent the state. They did not respond to a request for comment by deadline.
Fourth DCA Judge Mark Klingensmith wrote the ruling, backed by Judges Robert Gross and Dorian Damoorgian.
|Read the ruling:
More appeals:
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllRogge Dunn Represents Florida Trucking Firm in Civil RICO Suit Against Worldwide Express
4 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Pa. Hospital Agrees to $16M Settlement Following High Schooler's Improper Discharge
- 2Connecticut Movers: Year-End Promotions, Hires and an Office Opening
- 3Luigi Mangione Defense Attorney Says NYC Mayor’s Comments on Case Raise Fair Trial Concerns
- 4Revisiting the Boundaries Between Proper and Improper Argument: 10 Years Later
- 5Hochul Vetoes 'Grieving Families' Bill, Faulting a Lack of Changes to Suit Her Concerns
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250