Terrell v. State

Majority - Thompson, J.

No, the trial court did not commit reversible error by admitting the evidence from the police dog's tracking, allowing the warrantless vehicle search conducted at the police station, or by determining the legality of the arrest and search in the presence of the jury. The Court held that evidence of tracking by a trained German Shepherd police dog was properly admitted. The ability of a dog to follow human scent is admissible if a proper foundation is laid, which includes testimony on the dog's and handler's qualifications and experience, the dog's ability to track, and the circumstances of the trailing itself (e.g., fresh trail, no interference, dog placed at a point where the perpetrator was known to be). Such evidence serves as one circumstance to connect a defendant to the crime and must be corroborated. The Court dismissed minority objections regarding the dog's infallibility, superstitious awe, and inability to be cross-examined, stating that it is the handler's testimony about the dog's predictable actions, when properly trained, that is at issue, not the dog itself. Here, Officer Helton and Mr. Cahill (expert trainer) testified to Rocky's extensive training and reliability, the scene was protected, and the dog was placed on a fresh trail, leading directly to Terrell's car, and Terrell was later identified by the victim. The dog's pedigree is not a mandatory prerequisite, as "by his performance the old dog in this case pedigreed himself, at least." The Court further held that the warrantless search of the Plymouth automobile at the police station was valid as incident to the lawful arrest. The officers had probable cause to arrest Terrell and his companions given the dog's tracking, their proximity to the crime scene, and the victim's immediate identification. While a vehicle search incident to arrest is usually contemporaneous and at the scene, the Court followed precedent establishing that a search is valid if it is "part of a continuing series of events which included the original arrest and continued uninterruptedly as lawful police investigation and action," even if conducted with reasonable promptness at a police station to which the vehicle was towed. In this case, the search began at the scene with observations into the open car, and the towing to a nearby station for a more thorough search in the darkness and rain was a continuation of this integrated incident. Finally, the Court found no reversible error in the trial judge's decision to determine the lawfulness of the arrest and ensuing search and seizure in the presence of the jury. Although recognizing that conducting such a hearing out of the jury's presence is "better practice," consistent with Farrow v. State and later approved by Pinto v. Pierce, it is not mandatory or a basis for reversal if the evidence is ultimately determined to be admissible.