The New Jersey Appellate Division reversed a trial court’s order denying the defendant’s motion to compel discovery of records relating to a narcotics detection canine. In State v. Morgan, No. A-0499-23, 2024 WL 3503633 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. July 23, 2024), the Court resolved a question of first impression regarding when the State may be compelled to provide field and health reports of narcotics detection canines in accordance with the Supreme Court’s holding in Florida v. Harris, 568 U.S. 237 (2013).
The trial court denied the defendant’s motion to compel production of any and all: incident reports and canine activity reports involving Jocko the Dog, or alternatively a field log of Jocko’s sniffs done at scenes, the date and time of the deployments, whether they resulted in positive or negative indications, and what, if anything, was recovered. A report authored by an expert in canine olfaction, John C. Sagebiel, Ph.D. supported the motion.
Dr. Sagebiel evaluated Jocko’s training records as well as the relevant reports from the defendant’s arrest and opined that Jocko’s alert was false. Dr. Sagebiel cited facts in the record to support his opinion: no narcotics were found in the vehicle; Jocko had a history of giving alerts in the field that did not lead to the discovery of narcotics; Jocko did not give a consistent positive indication alert; and Jocko’s training indicates he had a high odor threshold, making it unlikely the alert on the car was due to residual odor.
The Appellate Division vacated the trial court’s order and ruled that such records are not irrelevant per se. Therefore, the court should have first heard the State’s motion challenging the expert before denying the defendant’s motion for discovery.
