Opinion ID: 901070
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Did Crockett alert?

Text: [¶ 50.] This question is important, but not in the way that both the Court and the dissenters approach it. We need not decide whether the dog alerted based on how Trooper Swets reacted to the dog's behavior. That is a backward analysis, made unnecessary by the expert testimony. We know the dog alerted because there is uncontradicted expert opinion that he did. The circuit court accepted that opinion. If we apply the clearly erroneous standard of review to that finding, as we must, then we are bound by it, for there is evidence in the record to support it. [¶ 51.] I realize that the federal district court found to the contrary. But that court did not have the benefit of hearing the State's expert. The federal court had to discern whether the dog alerted based on Trooper Swets's response to the dog. With only that evidence, I concede the answer is equivocal. But the State's expert on Crockett's behavior settled the issue. Kyle Heyen is familiar with Crockett: he trained him and he re-certified him. Heyen described Crockett's alert: his tail intensifies in its wagging and he gets an increasedvery intense sucking in through his nose thatit's very audible, and you can hear it. As the video tape was played for the circuit judge, Heyen pinpointed the exact time of Crockett's alert as heard on the tape: his nose started inhaling, sucking in, being a Hoover vacuum. For the benefit of the circuit judge, Heyen himself indicated how this sounds. With Heyen's assistance, the circuit court was evidently able to hear it because the court specifically found that the dog alerted. [¶ 52.] Although my personal viewing of the videotape is not dispositive on this point, in listening to it myself, at the point where Heyen stated that the dog alerted, I can hear increased sniffing, and some additional sounds, not inconsistent with the way Heyen described them. In declaring Heyen not credible, the dissent wrests from the trial judge a question that every appellate court in this land has said is ultimately a factual determination to be made by trial judges.