I can't believe this!
Buford and Hogue are citing a case from 1982 to support their claim that the use of HRD dogs "has not reached a scientific stage of verifiable certainty." How odd. They must realize they are grasping at straws.
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/540762-mcdaniel-defense-motions-351-pages.html#wgt=rcntnews
bbm: They are citing later cases, as well, though.
I don't have the background that many WSers do on following cases in which SAR/HRD dogs have played important parts -- but I'm thinking that it is unusual, anywhere, to have the dog evidence presented directly in court to the kind of purpose described in the first motion. I'm reading the motion to say that it has
never happened in Georgia (except when a dog actually located a body) and been upheld on challenge. Isn't that correct?
I'm thinking here that the usage referred to in this motion is more or less "putting the dog on the stand" (through the testimony of the handler and other experts and maybe through video, were it available, which in this case, it apparently is not), directly, as testimony/evidence in itself. I don't think that happens a
whole lot anywhere, does it, think it's routinely challenged...? So I can't think the defense is "grasping at straws" with this part. Now that I've read the whole motion itself, and not just the recap in the earlier newspaper article, I think the defense would be remiss NOT to make this motion, and I think it likely to be upheld (or whatever is the correct term) -- though I still think some of the wording in the motion is perhaps a
bit over the top (though not nearly so much as I thought earlier, when reading it out of the context of the entire motion), with the parts about Lassie, donkey-tail pulling, etc. Just a matter of style, I guess -- and it
does explain and illustrate some of the problems of dog-search evidence used in this particular way and, well, sometimes you gotta be over the top a little bit to get the point across. On the whole, I think it is a well-presented motion.
I
am aware that,
many times, search warrants are based on, perhaps among other things, dog results -- and that those searches often turn up evidence that IS admitted. Whole 'nother ballgame. (And makes perfect sense to me -- I truly am awed by the abilities of some of the dogs!) I think that could very well happen in this case. That's why
so much here, I think, maybe will hinge on whether the dog searches were "legal" or not -- whether permission was granted in an acceptable way (since there was no warrant) for the dog search of Stephen's apartment. It seems to me, from others of the motions, that
that's where the real battleground will be. And sure looks like the two sides are telling different stories about that.
I wondered, way back when Patterson testified at the commitment hearing about the search with permission and kind of bundled the dog search in with his narrative, whether LE specifically mentioned in talking to SM that the dogs were HRD/cadaver dogs. I wondered if the impression might have been allowed that they were perhaps SAR dogs, looking for (an alive) Lauren or a direction in which to search for her. (I still wonder. I guess, though, IF the dog searches happened
after LE was aware that Stephen had learned that remains had been found, that no mystery was maintained about what kind of dogs they were -- and I think that is probably the case, from what we've learned in the past few days, but I'm not certain.) Remember, Patterson and Winters (at two different hearings) reported two different remarks SM allegedly made in regard to the dogs -- Patterson saying, IIRC, that SM said something about maybe picking up something in Lauren's apartment when he was there the night before with the searching friends, and Winters saying SM said something might have "jumped on" him in the parking lot. Perhaps a possible dog search was proposed at two different points...? (All theory, here.)
Stephen's permission wouldn't be a factor in the dog searches outside Stephen's apartment, of course -- such as the front doors, etc. -- at least I would think not.
I hope some of the dog experts on WS will check in soon with some thoughts on all of this. I'm wondering why no dog alerts near the area of the trash can where the remains were found. I'm thinking probably the trash receptacle itself had probably been removed already...? Maybe, if the bags containing the remains never touched the ground there, that would make a difference?
Noted from the motion that the handler and one or both (can't recall for sure) dogs also checked out the Mercer Law dumpster and went to the Macon Landfill, with no alerts, apparently.