People vs Terrel

3 Md. App. 340 (1968)

239 A.2d 128

FACTS: A robbery took place in Park Star Motel. The officers responding noticed that a set of coins led
from the hotel entrance to an alley. Using trained K9 dog “Rocky” they followed the trail, and it led to a
parked car. Inside were three people whom the police asked to stay. Moments later, the motel clerk
arrived, and she positively identified the men as the robbers, one of them Terrel.

Terrel now assails the admissibility of the fact of tracking, claiming that the dog was not presented on
the witness stand.

ISSUE: Is the fact that the dog was able to track the perpetrators admissible, considering that the dog
was not presented on the witness stand?

RULING: YES, it is admissible.

It is true that "[n]either the court nor the jury can have any means of knowing why the dog does this
thing or another ." People v. Pfanschmidt, 262 Ill. 411, 104 N.E. 823, 1915A Ann. Cas. 1171 (1914).

However, the dog trainer can make his perceptions known. It is the trainer who controls the dog,
therefore, he should be the one to be examined and cross-examined. Therefore, "the accused does
have an opportunity to confront and cross-examine these witnesses who give evidence." 33 Yale L.
Rev. 216 (1923). The trainer stays with the dogs so he testifies as to his own observations.

“In the case at bar, the qualifications and experience of the dog were shown. The scene was protected
until the dog arrived. The dog was placed on the trail where it seemed apparent that the perpetrators of
the crime had been. There was no interruption in the tracking. The dog went to the car where the
appellant was hiding along with two other men. The appellant was identified by the victim. All the dog
did was locate three men and the appellant was identified as one of the perpetrators. The lower court
did not err in admitting evidence of tracking.”