|
Christopher Boyer
Pre-Trial Evidentiary Hearings February 25-26, 2004
Direct Examination by David Harris D. HARRIS: Mr. Boyer, what is your association with the Contra Costa County Sheriff's Department? BOYER: I'm a member of the Volunteer Sheriff's Search and Rescue Department. Specifically I'm the Captain of the Search and Rescue Team. D. HARRIS: As Captain of the Search and Rescue Team, are you responsible for some of the K‑9 teams and cadaver dogs, and tracking or trailing dogs? BOYER: Yes, sir. I'm a K‑9 handler. I also work with their training. D. HARRIS: As part of your duties, you work with their training. Do you actually have your own dogs as well? BOYER: Yes, sir. I have a certified cadaver dog. D. HARRIS: And that's a dog that's certified through CARDA? BOYER: No, sir. It's certified through the Office of Emergency Services. D. HARRIS: To speed up the process, I'd like to have marked people's next in order a copy of Mr. Boyer's resume. JUDGE: That should be People's Number, D. HARRIS: 14. JUDGE: Correct. You have a cadaver dog certified through the Office of Emergency Services? BOYER: Yes, sir. JUDGE: Do you want to us burn you a copy of that, Mr. Harris? D. HARRIS: He has a copy. P. HARRIS: We were, we have a copy. We were not aware Mr. Boyer was going to be a witness. JUDGE: Didn't you guys say that yesterday? P. HARRIS: I asked Mr. Harris specifically two days ago who would be witnesses. He said there would be two witnesses, Miss Anderson and Miss Valentin. We were not prepared for Mr. Boyer to, D. HARRIS: We also said Mr. Boyer was here. We weren't sure if we would call him. Depend on how the other witnesses go. That is two days ago. GERAGOS: That's not true. That's not true. They told us there was two witnesses, exactly what we were told. JUDGE: Okay. Well, what, do you need time until tomorrow to, P. HARRIS: I would prefer until tomorrow, if we could. Have to get prepared for the witness. JUDGE: Let me ask a question. How long do you expect to be on direct examination with Captain Boyer? D. HARRIS: Fairly briefly. All we're going to be addressing is a few points that have been raised with the other two witnesses. And probably the bigger area that he this might want to cover is his expertise in the area of scent theory. JUDGE: In what theory? D. HARRIS: Scent theory. JUDGE: S-c-e-n-t? D. HARRIS: Yes. P. HARRIS: I have no problem, if the Court wishes for direct. I would like until tomorrow. JUDGE: I'll give you tomorrow to cross, no problem. Let's see if we can get his direct examination in, and you can cross examine tomorrow. P. HARRIS: Thank you. JUDGE: Are we, remember, I made this suggestion that we let each side know who the witnesses are going to be for the next day. GERAGOS: We have given them notice of our witnesses five days in advance and six days in advance. If I can get five or six hours in advance I'll be happy. JUDGE: You would be thrilled. Rick Distaso: Your Honor, the thing is, this constant, JUDGE: You are too thin-skinned. GERAGOS: He is awfully thin-skinned. JUDGE: The thing is, if you are going to be a DA, you got to let this stuff roll off your back. Question is, what I want you to do is, to make sure you got, to make sure that you let the other side know so we don't get into these problems. I'm not saying you did this deliberately. Rick Distaso: Right, your Honor. And I believe we did let him know. We told him we had Eloise Anderson here, Boyer here. I mean why do they think we bring a person here unless we are planning on calling them as a witness? That's my point. JUDGE: Okay. GERAGOS: Fact of the matter is, JUDGE: He said you told him. He wasn't sure. So we'll solve the problem, letting him cross examine tomorrow. I just want to you know, reiterate that it's, we would avoid these problems if you just hand him a list of those people you intend to call. Just write them down on paper. You know. These are the witnesses for tomorrow. Boom, there is no argument. GERAGOS: I would even suggest, Mr. Distaso and I have gotten in the practice of e-mail back and forth, if he wants to just, JUDGE: Anyway. GERAGOS: Just mail it, send it over the system. JUDGE: I don't care how you guys do it. GERAGOS: You can yell it out the window for all I care. JUDGE: I don't care how you do it, as long as you notify each side. There is a misunderstanding, and I understand that. Okay. Go ahead, Mr. Harris. D. HARRIS: Thank you. Captain Boyer, just presenting you what's been marked People's Number 14. Is that an accurate copy of your resume? BOYER: Yes, sir, it is. D. HARRIS: I want to go through that briefly with you. While we are waiting for that to be marked, you were indicating to the Court that you had a certified cadaver dog. P. HARRIS: May I approach? I want to see, what are you looking for the CV? JUDGE: We'll burn you a copy so you can have it. P. HARRIS: I think he's actually got an additional copy. That's an extra one. JUDGE: Give it to him so he can have it. Go ahead, Mr. Harris. D. HARRIS: Captain Boyer, you indicated to the Court that you have a certified cadaver dog. Do you also, were you attempting to also train a trailing dog prior to having an injury? BOYER: Yes, sir. For a period of one year I was training a trailing dog until it got hit hip dysplasia. D. HARRIS: Okay. How long have you been with the Contra Costa Sheriff's Department? BOYER: I started with their Search and Rescue Team as a volunteer in 1995. Became a Reserve Deputy in 1997. D. HARRIS: And have you been working with the dogs in terms of training, your own certification process, with the cadaver dog since then? BOYER: Yes, sir. Since 1996 or so. D. HARRIS: The cadaver dog, what type much dog is that? BOYER: It's a Labrador Retriever. D. HARRIS: And the trailing dog that you have? BOYER: Was a bloodhound. D. HARRIS: Just to go through People's Number 14 fairly quickly, can you tell the Court a little bit about your background in the area of instruction, or in your association with the Office of Emergency Services in the area of dogs? BOYER: Yes, sir. The California Governor's Office of Emergency Services is the body responsible for search and rescue and search and rescue mutual aid in the State of California. They set the guidelines and standards for search and rescue, ground pounders, dogs, horses, et cetera, all those types of resources that we use. I teach for them a 40 hour course in search and rescue management. I teach for them in other areas, including scent theory for a class for dog handlers, which is required of them to take as part of their certification. Teach a class in managing search dogs for search managers. Authored, or I, excuse me. I co-authored a class in child-stranger abduction, homicide. I teach that both locally, at the state level, and at the national level. D. HARRIS: You mentioned something about scent theory. What is that? BOYER: Scent theory for dog handlers is explained to them, the chemical, biological, and other processes and behaviors of the dog, that allow it to be a scent hound, or a scent dog, and how it develops those things, and how to interpret the environment and the scent articles they are using, or what they are looking for. D. HARRIS: And does the Governor's Office of Emergency Services, in terms of what it uses for dogs, make a distinction between Bloodhounds, or Labradors, or any other type of dog? BOYER: No, sir, they do not. D. HARRIS: So the state will certify a dog that's qualified. Doesn't matter what the breed is? BOYER: Yes, sir. We don't pay any attention to the breed, really. D. HARRIS: Are you familiar with a person by the name of Andrew, or Andy Rebmann? BOYER: Yes, sir, I am. D. HARRIS: And who is Mr. Rebmann? BOYER: Mr. Rebmann is a dog handler and instructor. I have taken two courses from him, and he's attended a seminar that I have taught at as well. D. HARRIS: Does the seminar that you taught that Mr. Rebmann attended, what seminar was that? BOYER: That was the National Search and Rescue Seminar held this past September in Reno. I taught a two‑hour block on scent theory. It was a short course of my regular eight‑hour course that he attended. P. HARRIS: I'm sorry, I didn't get the part where it was. BOYER: It was at NASAR, the National Search and Rescue Organization held that the seminar in Reno, Nevada, this past September. D. HARRIS: Is that somewhat covered on the first page of your resume, People's Number 14? BOYER: Yes, sir. D. HARRIS: And that is where it indicates over the past few years you have been invited to present classes at NASAR, SARCON, SAR City, so on, so forth? BOYER: Yes, sir. D. HARRIS: Let's back up. What is NASAR? BOYER: NASAR is National Association for Search and Rescue, headquartered out of Chantilly, Virginia. D. HARRIS: What is SARCON? BOYER: SARCON is a seminar that's put on by Washoe County Sheriff's Department in Reno, Nevada, every year. D. HARRIS: And what is SAR City? BOYER: SAR City is a seminar put on annually in October in Barstow by the Desert Rescue Squad of San Bernardino County. D. HARRIS: Have you ever, you have also trained for the Federal government in the area of dogs and search and rescue? BOYER: Trained the FEMA, Federal Emergency Management Agency. I worked with the FBI in their Evidence Response Teams. D. HARRIS: In terms of your hands‑on experience, besides all that you have given us, the process that you went through with your cadaver dog, did you go through a sign‑off process to get your dog certified? BOYER: Yes, sir. D. HARRIS: And we have heard testimony about how that works. But are you required to do certain tests and physical trials for your dog to become certified? BOYER: Yes, sir. Tests in finding human remains, tests in agility, tests in obedience. D. HARRIS: And did your dog complete those sign‑off processes? BOYER: Yes, my dog did. D. HARRIS: It became certified? BOYER: Yes, sir, it did. D. HARRIS: Again, when we talk about the dog, it actually worked, the dog works with you as a team? BOYER: Yes, sir. D. HARRIS: Now, I want to talk to you a little bit about dog scent theory. Can you describe for the Court what that is? BOYER: Scent theory itself? D. HARRIS: Yes. BOYER: It would be the theory behind how scent is produced from different articles that you are looking for, depending upon whether you are looking for live humans, human remains, whether you are looking for a victim of an avalanche, or if you are looking for a body underwater. It includes how the dog detects the scent, how the environment affects the scent, and how to manage your dog and work your dog so that you put it in a better position to find those things and work through any problems that you might have in the environment. D. HARRIS: Now, there was some questions that were asked previously about when we have a transition between the, when a person is alive and they smell like a live human, to after that he person dies, to when they stop smelling like a live human. Have you come into contact, not contact. Have you come into exposure to these type of scenarios, or are you aware of circumstances where something like this comes up? BOYER: Yes, sir. P. HARRIS: Objection, vague. It's vague. JUDGE: I don't think so. I mean I understood it, so can't be that vague. Overruled. Go ahead. D. HARRIS: You can answer. BOYER: Every time a dog is called out that's a cadaver dog, we obviously are looking for decomposing human remains. But any dog that's called out for a search where we have a missing person, we never know whether that person has expired or not. And so the search is always for an assumed live human. But that person could be dead at the end of a trail for trailing dog, or they could be dead in the area that an area search, or a wilderness search, a dog that's looking for live remains. Even in an avalanche you don't know whether the victim is alive or dead under the avalanche. Dog has to figure that out. D. HARRIS: With regards to people and their scent, is it possible for a person to have both a kind of cadaver scent and a necrotic decomposing dying scent, and also a live scent? BOYER: Yes, sir, absolutely. D. HARRIS: And can you give the Court an example of that? BOYER: A simple example would be a chronic diabetic that has a gangrenous limb, or a necrotic limb that is putrefying, and that person is still alive. It would be found by both cadaver dog and a live wilderness dog. D. HARRIS: Individuals like that that have these kind of medical conditions, is that something that's fairly common on call out for search and rescue? BOYER: Not necessarily. But it can be for Alzheimers victims, and things like that. D. HARRIS: Moving into this particular case, were you contacted to assist the Modesto Police Department back in December 26th of 2002? BOYER: Yes, sir. D. HARRIS: And in your capacity as the kind of person in charge, coordinator for the K‑9 teams, did you respond with them to Modesto? BOYER: Yes, sir, I did. D. HARRIS: And did you eventually go to a location on Covena Avenue and meet with the defendant, Mr. Peterson? BOYER: Yes, sir, I did. D. HARRIS: Did you talk to Mr. Peterson about the process of the search that was going to be conducted looking for his missing wife, Laci Peterson? BOYER: Yes, sir. I conducted at very short missing person interview for some information that would be needed for the trailing dog and the work we would be doing there. I explained what the trailing dog would do, and then we executed that. D. HARRIS: And as part of the process, did you or members of your team, get what are referred to has scent articles? BOYER: We have to collect scent articles for a trailing dog. They are a discriminating dog that needs something to cue off of. D. HARRIS: Were scent items collected? BOYER: Yes, sir. D. HARRIS: And did Mr. Peterson ask for anything with regards to those scent items? BOYER: He asked that we leave a receipt for those. D. HARRIS: Did you provide him with a receipt for the items that he agreed to let you take? BOYER: Yes, sir. D. HARRIS: As the scene manager, or the person which in charge of this, did you, as supervisor, follow the people that ran these trails? BOYER: Yes, sir. D. HARRIS: And just going through that, you are familiar with Cindee Valentin? BOYER: Yes, I am. D. HARRIS: Familiar with her dog Merlin? BOYER: Yes, sir. D. HARRIS: Did you follow or supervise her track away from Covena? BOYER: Yes, sir. I was the supervisor on scene. I was also part of the security element to keep the dog and the trailing party safe. D. HARRIS: Did you go with Miss Valentin when she was asked to do another trail over at, by MPD over at the defendant's warehouse? BOYER: Yes, sir, I did. D. HARRIS: And you went to that location over at Emerald? BOYER: Yes, sir. D. HARRIS: Did you also act in that same capacity as kind of a runner, for lack of a better term? BOYER: Yes, sir. D. HARRIS: Were you familiar with the, or did you participate in, or see the track away from the warehouse to where it ended on 132? BOYER: Yes, sir, I did. D. HARRIS: Are you familiar with Eloise Anderson? BOYER: Yes, sir, I am. D. HARRIS: And is she also one of the members of your team? BOYER: Yes, sir, she is. D. HARRIS: And are you familiar with her dogs Twist and Trimble? BOYER: Yes, sir. D. HARRIS: Were you, did you also go with her when she went to the Berkeley Marina? BOYER: Yes, sir, I did. D. HARRIS: And that was on December 28th of 2002? BOYER: Yes, sir, it was. D. HARRIS: Were you aware of what she did there? Did you act as kind of a scene manager at that particular point? BOYER: I acted as the scene manager, yes, sir. D. HARRIS: You know the location she was at at the Berkeley Marina? BOYER: Yes, sir, I do. D. HARRIS: I want to show you some of the exhibits that have been marked. Starting with People's Number 9. That's the map of the Covena Avenue area. Do you recognize that map? BOYER: Yes, sir, I do. D. HARRIS: And does People's Number 9 fairly and accurately represent the area that's depicted, and the trail that was run by Miss Valentin and Merlin? BOYER: From the house at Covena, yes, sir. D. HARRIS: Showing you what's been marked as People's Number 10. Have you look at that. Do you recognize what's depicted in People's Number 10? BOYER: Yes, sir. D. HARRIS: And do you recognize in there where it represents to be the defendant's warehouse at Emerald Avenue? BOYER: Yes, sir. It's indicated by a label that says 1027 North Emerald Avenue. D. HARRIS: Do you see the yellow highlighted portion of the trail that goes down to 132 at Mays Boulevard? BOYER: Yes, sir. D. HARRIS: You are familiar with the trail that was run? BOYER: Yes, sir. D. HARRIS: By the dog that night? P. HARRIS: Objection. That's vague. There were two different trails run that night. D. HARRIS: I'll ask it again. Does it show the trail that was run from the warehouse until it was stopped down at 132? BOYER: Yes, sir, it does. D. HARRIS: Showing you People's Number 13. Do you recognize this? BOYER: Yes, sir. D. HARRIS: Does this depict the area, it's a little, a little bit further back kind of map that shows more of the general area of Modesto? BOYER: Yes, sir. D. HARRIS: And does that depict the area, leaving off in the previous exhibits, the trail on 132 until it ends on People's Number 13? BOYER: Yes, sir. It accurately depicts a drop trail from the corner of Mays Boulevard and Emerald Avenue down, all way down to the 580 interchange. D. HARRIS: Showing you last People's Number 12. Do you recognize what's depicted in that? BOYER: Yes, sir. D. HARRIS: And does that depict the Berkeley Marina? BOYER: Yes, sir, it does. D. HARRIS: And also does it depict in yellow towards the left the trail that was run by Trimble? BOYER: Yes, sir, it does. D. HARRIS: Now, are you familiar with, and have you driven those locations from Modesto out to the Berkeley Marina? BOYER: Yes, sir, I have. D. HARRIS: The trail that is depicted in the photograph of Covena Avenue, excuse me, the map of Covena Avenue, does that trail basically go away from the house? BOYER: Yes, sir, it does. D. HARRIS: And when you went to the defendant's warehouse in relationship to that particular location at Covena, is that the same general direction? BOYER: As in going away from the house? D. HARRIS: Yes. BOYER: Yes, sir. D. HARRIS: When you got to the warehouse, looking at the map that depict, the depiction of the trail that was run from the warehouse down to 132, does that continue to go away from the house? BOYER: Yes, sir, it does. D. HARRIS: As you followed the trail in the next map that goes out to where it ends on, 580 that goes from Modesto to 580? BOYER: Yes, sir. D. HARRIS: Does that go away from the house? BOYER: Yes, sir, it does. D. HARRIS: Going from Modesto out 132 to 580, does that take you towards the general area of Berkeley? BOYER: It takes you towards the Bay Area and the Berkeley Marina, yes, sir. D. HARRIS: And looking at the last run, the trail by the dog on the Berkeley Marina, does that track go towards the water? BOYER: Yes, sir, it does. D. HARRIS: East. People have no other questions. <evening recess>
Thursday, February 26 D. HARRIS: Captain Boyer, yesterday I had asked you for an example of where a live person could have a dead, dead scent. And what I want to do is do the flip side. Can you explain to the court how the process of, under scent theory, how the process works where a dead person would still have a live scent? BOYER: Yes, sir. Yesterday my example was a live human being with a necrotic limb or putrefying limb, that would occur. To understand that, really, I need to explain a little bit about where live scent comes from and where dead scent comes from, so that the court understands where I'm coming from for that. Live scent is, typically comes from the scaling of skin cells that come off, and attached to those skin cells at a very molecular level are things that come from your body: Sweat, sebum, the deodorant that you use, the clothing that you touch, the detergent that's on that clothing, the things that you do in your employment. If you're a cleaning person, you would have cleaning solvents on your hands, things like that. So, typically, live scent is a external generated scent that's on the outside of your body coming from your skin or your hair. Dead scent is actually more of an internal situation. When you die initially and the heart stops pumping, your body, the cell structure, goes into what's called autolysis, and, A-U-T-O-L-Y-S-I-S. I'm sorry. Autolysis. And what that is, actually, is inside your skin cells all the cells have the mitochondrion and the cytoplasm, and all that. They also have a lot of proteins and carbohydrates that they're eating in there and creating energy from, so there's a lot of stored energy inside your body. The circulatory system is the cooling system for the body, and when that shuts down, when the heart stops, the internal cellular structure begins to heat up very quickly. As it does that, the outer coating of that cell structure is split open as the cell expands, allowing the internal contents to come out and allowing anaerobic bacteria to begin to feed on that cell structure. So that smell is actually coming inside. And the things that begin to, to degrade or decompose first are, are the heart, the intestinal systems where there's a lot of bacteria, the stomach contents and that area. The places that that smell comes out of is through the alimentary canal, either through the esophagus, the trachea, up through the mouth and the nose, or through the rectal cavity. So, death smells typically come from inside. As I said, the, the body's cooling system is what keeps that, that death smell to, to begin. So if the environment that you're in, say if you're an Eskimo and you die in the Arctic, you freeze very quickly as you die, so that autolytic process doesn't have a chance to take place because the environment cools the core of the body so quickly the cellular structure doesn't have a chance to breach. So the cooler environment you smell dead less or produces less death smell. In a situation like this, you have to think of those skin cells, the exterior live scent, as a bunch Post‑it notes on a body, and as that person walks along, those Post‑it notes fall off, and they degrade in the environment as they fall off. And then if that person dies at a person point in time along that walking path, for example, there are still Post‑it notes, or skin rafts, still attached to that person that are still degrading at the same rate and under the same conditions, with the same smell, at a molecular level as are the skin rafts that were left at the beginning of the trail and along the trail all the way. The death smell that's beginning is, is interior and is beginning to come out, but you can still have a very overwhelming live smell attached to that person for a very long time. Especially if the environmental conditions are very cool. D. HARRIS: Now, we were talking about dog training and your experience. And you set up the training with your particular department for the two handlers in this particular case that we were talking about, Ms. Valentin and Ms. Anderson. And I want to talk about scent discrimination, so to speak. If a person has touched an item or it's a person's item and somebody else touches it, do you train for that? Or how does that work in scent theory? BOYER: Are you referring to contamination of a scent article, sir? D. HARRIS: Yes. BOYER: Is that what you're asking? There are training ways that we do. We do train on contaminated scent articles. I'm not an expert on either of these dogs. I don't have their training logs so I can't tell you how much of that training they've personally done. But we do, that is an issue we are aware of and we do train towards, because we can't always have a perfect scent article. In some cases the person that's missing goes missing out of county or somewhere far away, because they're vacationing there, and the scent article that we need needs to be collected from their home by another officer and flown there. So we're not always quite sure of the nature of that scent article, in some cases. So the predominant scent, and we look for scent articles that are very personal to someone. Something that they have contact with on almost a daily basis. Skin contact with. Things like a watch; their toothbrush works very well for us because there's the soft epithelial cells from the gums on it, but the lab usually wants that for DNA, so we don't get those very often. Glasses, hair barrettes are very good because hair retains a lot of scent. Sleeping gowns, pillows, things that are very personal to that person. And then if there are other people that are in the bed, a loved one in the bed with them that happens to be there, the dog can discriminate between the predominant scent of the person we're looking for and other scents that are around. D. HARRIS: As part of your training exercises, do you train the dogs to work with the predominant scent? BOYER: Yes, sir, we do. D. HARRIS: And without looking at the training records, are Merlin and Trimble, the two dogs in this case, are they trained in that area of predominant scent? BOYER: Yes, sir. We've done exercises of that nature that I'm aware of. D. HARRIS: You were also talking about you had gone out to the marina and looked at those particular maps that are up there. I'd like to have, I don't know if we need to have it marked. JUDGE: Next in order? D. HARRIS: It's an exhibit from the preliminary hearing. JUDGE: Okay. What was it, what was it formerly marked? D. HARRIS: I believe it was 133. JUDGE: All right. That will be pretrial hearing number J. Formerly 133 at the preliminary hearing. What is it, Mr. Harris? D. HARRIS: It's a blow‑up of a photograph. JUDGE: I assume the defense has seen this. D. HARRIS: Yes. It was an exhibit that was admitted at the prelim. Captain, let me open this up for you and show you what was previously marked as 133 and it's now, was it J? JUDGE: It's now People's J. Clerk: People's J? Shouldn't it be 15? I beg your pardon. Yeah. Mr., the clerk corrected me. I'm marking this as a Defendant's Exhibit. Should be 15. D. HARRIS: All right. So formerly ‑‑ JUDGE: Someone, hold oh a second. 15. Formerly 133 of the PX. So People's 15; and J is still open for the, for the defense. It's a blow‑up of a photograph. You want to, would it be easier just to clip it to the board? D. HARRIS: They do have some tacks up there. I'll just tack it up. JUDGE: Okay. Thank you, Marilyn. And, Captain, there's a pointer I can see in the tray there that you can use. D. HARRIS: Captain, let me give you a second to look at that and orient yourself. Do you recognize that as an aerial photograph of the area around the Berkeley Marina up to Point Isabel and Brooks Island. BOYER: Yes, sir, I do. It's part of the San Francisco Bay area. D. HARRIS: And to the lower right do you see the area where it's written on the diagram, it says Berkeley Marina? BOYER: Yes, sir. Lower right. D. HARRIS: You just pointed with the pointer to that particular location? BOYER: Yes, sir, I did. D. HARRIS: Do you see up to the area where it says, I can't read it from there. Laci Peterson recovery site? BOYER: Yes, sir, I see that. D. HARRIS: Do you also see to the left center of it Brooks Island Regional Preserve? BOYER: Yes, sir. D. HARRIS: Are you familiar with these areas? BOYER: Yes, sir, I am. JUDGE: Would you point out the Laci Peterson recovery site? BOYER: Yes, sir. This is the Laci Peterson recovery site. JUDGE: And what's the other one? BOYER: Brooks Island. JUDGE: Brooks Island. Okay. What's the other one at the top? BOYER: The label says Conner Peterson recovery site, sir. JUDGE: That's where Conner Peterson was recovered. Go ahead. D. HARRIS: Now, Captain, looking at the map where it says, the box says, or try this again. The photograph blow‑up where it says Laci Peterson recovery site, is there a yellow dot that represents where the body of Laci Peterson washed ashore? BOYER: Yes, sir, there is. D. HARRIS: And do you know the approximate distance between the Berkeley Marina and where that was at? BOYER: It's probably about two miles. Maybe a little more. D. HARRIS: And the area of, JUDGE: Is that as the crow flies? Or is it by, BOYER: That would be straight line, sir. D. HARRIS: And Brooks Island from the Berkeley Marina, if you recall that? BOYER: It's about the same distance, sir. D. HARRIS: Now, when you went to the Berkeley Marina, you were shown the photograph yesterday, the aerial of the Berkeley Marina, the particular dock, I don't know if you can see it in the blow‑up up there, 15, formerly 133, does the dock that the dog when out on and alerted kind at the end of the trail at the end where that pylon was at, is that on the shore side? Is that out in the waterway? If you can describe that a little bit to the court. BOYER: That would be the, the actual, it's not a dock. It's more of a pier, a floating pier out over the water that the dog went out on. It would be the west‑most pier of the launching area, and it is towards the Bay side, towards the water side and the exit of the marina towards the open area of Brooks Island. D. HARRIS: So the dock, is the dock, whatever this is, this floating pier, is it further out than the boat ramp that goes into the water? BOYER: Yes, sir. It extends out over the water probably 30 yards or so. D. HARRIS: The People have no further questions.
Cross Examination by Pat Harris P. HARRIS: Captain Boyer, you mentioned that these were, in fact, the life, you call them life rafts; is that right? BOYER: Skin rafts. P. HARRIS: Skin rafts, excuse me. Are the Post‑it notes, BOYER: It's an analogy, yes, sir. P. HARRIS: Yeah. And basically the Post‑it notes, it's not exactly the most heavy article in the world, is it? BOYER: No, sir. P. HARRIS: In fact, if you took this Post‑it note, put it outside, let the wind blow it for two days, it would end up probably in San Francisco, wouldn't it? BOYER: I wouldn't know that, sir, but it could, it could travel a distance, yes. P. HARRIS: Well, you know that skin rafts could very well in two weeks end up in San Francisco if it was not human scent standing outside, don't you? BOYER: That would depend, sir, upon the environmental conditions and how quickly they were consumed by the bacteria on them are creating the scents. The skin rafts do not stay forever. They are consumed by bacteria and deposed and degrade, so there's a period of time that that occurs, and then they disappear. P. HARRIS: Exactly. Skin rafts decompose quickly, don't they? BOYER: Depends, I'm sorry, it would depend upon the environmental conditions, sir. "Quickly" is a relative term for them. P. HARRIS: And those environmental conditions include things like wind? BOYER: No, sir. P. HARRIS: Wind does not have a factor in terms of where skin rafts end up? BOYER: No, sir. Your question was do, do they decompose quickly and does wind have an environmental condition on how quickly they decompose. No, it does not. P. HARRIS: So wind wouldn't play a factor? In terms of no matter how high the winds were, it wouldn't play a factor in the actual decomposition? BOYER: Of the skin rafts, no, sir. P. HARRIS: Things like sunlight would? BOYER: Yes, sir. P. HARRIS: Okay. Other factors other, are there other factors, including things like, perhaps, heavy traffic? BOYER: I wouldn't characterize heavy traffic as a decomposition element of, of skin rafts, no, sir. P. HARRIS: But there's two separate things we're talking about, then. We're talking about not only can a skin raft decompose, but a skin raft can also be taken away to a different location by environmental conditions, correct? BOYER: Yes, sir. P. HARRIS: Okay. And it's very safe to say that a skin raft, which is microscopic, correct? BOYER: Skin rafts are not necessarily microscopic, no. P. HARRIS: Are they, BOYER: As a matter of fact, P. HARRIS: I'm sorry. Go ahead. BOYER: I'm sorry. Skin rafts, when you look at dander in your household, that's skin rafts, so you can see it with the human eye in some cases. P. HARRIS: Okay. And when you see this dander, is this something that has some kind of heavy volume to it? Does it weigh a great deal? BOYER: A human sheds roughly a hundred and 50,000 of these skin rafts every hour. P. HARRIS: That's not what I asked. BOYER: I can't, I can't, P. HARRIS: What I asked, BOYER: I don't have the ability to weigh that. P. HARRIS: Well, let's use common sense. Let's just try and think about this. A dander, a single skin raft itself weighs certainly less than one ounce? BOYER: That's an assumption, yes, sir. P. HARRIS: That's a fair assumption, isn't it? BOYER: Yes. P. HARRIS: And in common sense, something that weighs less than one ounce, when it is in the air isn't going to just hang around, is it? BOYER: Probably not. No, sir. P. HARRIS: No. It's going to go in all kinds of different directions due to environmental conditions, correct? BOYER: Yes, sir. P. HARRIS: So this entire thing we've been talking about for two days is basically voodoo because these scents aren't capable of sitting there, staying there in the location where you claim they are? D. HARRIS: Objection. Argumentative. JUDGE: Sustained. P. HARRIS: Captain Boyer, when did you go to work, well, first of all, I want to clarify just, your, your position with Contra Costa. You work in the sheriff's office; is that, BOYER: I'm a per diem deputy for the sheriff right now, P. HARRIS: And what do you mean by, I'm sorry? BOYER: And that means I work as an hourly deputy for them. That's my employment. My volunteer position with them is as the leader of the search and rescue team. P. HARRIS: When you are saying per diem, is that a part time job? BOYER: Yes, sir. P. HARRIS: Okay. And your volunteer work is, with the search and rescue team is separate from your per diem job? BOYER: Yes, sir, it is. P. HARRIS: And your capacity as a volunteer with the search and rescue team, are you in a supervisory position? BOYER: Yes, sir, I am. P. HARRIS: And how many, you supervise dog handlers? BOYER: Yes, sir, I do. P. HARRIS: When you're, how many dog handlers do you supervise? BOYER: Currently we have five. P. HARRIS: Okay. And that would be Ms. Valentin would be one of them? BOYER: Yes. P. HARRIS: Who else are the other four? Ms. Anderson? BOYER: Miss Anderson would be one. Ms. McCoy would be another, and Ms. McAllen would be another after that. P. HARRIS: And who is the fifth one? BOYER: Myself. P. HARRIS: Yourself. As far as are you in the, are you, as a supervisor do you have a role in the hiring of these people? BOYER: No, sir, I do not. P. HARRIS: So that's done by somebody else within the department? BOYER: The department, yes, sir. P. HARRIS: Who would be doing the actual hiring of these people? BOYER: My boss, Sergeant Christiansen. P. HARRIS: And when Sergeant Christiansen hires someone to be a dog handler, what qualifications is he looking for? BOYER: I don't think that he necessarily hires someone as a dog handler. People apply to the team. They show an interest. After a certain amount of training, if they decide that being a dog handler is something they want to do, then, then we train them for that. But very rarely do you have someone that comes in with a completely trained dog that applies to be part of a team. P. HARRIS: In fact, what they hire most frequently from are obedience schools? BOYER: I'm sorry, sir? P. HARRIS: In fact, what he hires from most frequently from are obedience schools? BOYER: Hires what from obedience schools? P. HARRIS: Hires people to work a dog handlers. They generally come from obedience schools; is that correct? BOYER: No, sir, that's not correct. Could you define the term "hire" as you're using it? I think we may have a cross‑ways here of that definition. P. HARRIS: You said that Captain Christiansen was responsible for employing, hiring people to work. When I say hire I assume what you're having a problem with is that they're actually volunteers. BOYER: Yes, sir, they're volunteers. P. HARRIS: So when he brings somebody in to work as a volunteer, these people generally come from obedience schools? BOYER: No, sir, they do not. That's the minority of what we have. P. HARRIS: But that's where Ms. Valentin came from; is that correct? BOYER: To my knowledge, yes, sir. P. HARRIS: In fact, she came directly from an obedience school, volunteered, and was taken even before she had started working at the obedience school; isn't that true? BOYER: I don't know that, sir. Her history precedes mine. P. HARRIS: You weren't there when she began volunteering? BOYER: No, sir. P. HARRIS: You received a call, let me make sure on this. You, did you receive a call on the morning of December 26th, 2002, asking for your help in locating a woman in Modesto, California? BOYER: If I could have a copy of my report to refer to, just to make sure I get the dates and times correct, I'd appreciate that. P. HARRIS: Do you have a copy? BOYER: No, I don't with me, sir. D. HARRIS: If I can approach the witness and give him my copy. JUDGE: Mr. Harris, you want to make sure? P. HARRIS: Sure. BOYER: Thank you, sir. JUDGE: Do you need a paper clip to hold that together? BOYER: Yes, sir. That would be great. JUDGE: Tell you what, I'll give you a big one. Here you go. Why don't you try this out. BOYER: Thank you, sir. JUDGE: Tell you what; let's take the morning recess, Mr. Harris, for the reporter. P. HARRIS: Sure. <morning recess> P. HARRIS: Thank you, your Honor. Captain Boyer, I asked you about who you had, who you supervised. I apologize, but I got the name of McCoy, Anderson, Valentin, and, BOYER: McAllen. P. HARRIS: McAllen. McCoy and McAllen? BOYER: Yes, sir. P. HARRIS: In your capacity as their supervisor, do you oversee the training? BOYER: No, sir, I do not, directly. P. HARRIS: Do you look at the training logs to see how the dogs are performing? BOYER: I do. P. HARRIS: Do you assign them particular kind of tasks that you want, that you want the dogs to be performing at a particular time? BOYER: You would have to qualify that question further, sir. P. HARRIS: Let me restate it then. Do you have specific tasks in minds for the dogs, and you ask the handler, would you please run them through this particular type of task? BOYER: Let me try to answer it this way. There are common search and rescue missions that we perform, and there are common tasks associated with those. And those are some of the core skill sets that we work with, yes. P. HARRIS: So, for example, if you wanted the dog to do, if you felt like, just to give you an example, is it Mr. McCoy or Ms. McCoy? BOYER: Ms. McCoy. P. HARRIS: You want Miss McCoy's dog to do a particular type of wilderness search, you would be the one who directs her and tells her to do that, or she would be doing that on her own? BOYER: She may do that on her own due to her affiliation with CARDA. Because of our type of geography, let me try to answer your question this way. Many of the dogs with CARDA are wilderness trained. Our county is very suburban, rural, and urban, and the dogs that are trained in a wilderness way. The handlers and the dogs are not always aware of traffic and working in a suburban or urban area, that, we don't have bears in our county, you have bears. In our county you have to worry about Rottweilers or Pit Bulls coming out of backyards. We train them for geographic and our type of missions, yes. P. HARRIS: One of your jobs is to direct some of that, to direct them? BOYER: Yes, sir. P. HARRIS: And you would, for example, when you are reading the training logs, or directing what specifically these handlers are to do, you would have knowledge, for example, that they were doing a vehicle trail. BOYER: Yes, sir. P. HARRIS: So you are aware that in fact, Ms. Valentin's particular dog Merlin had only done three vehicle trails by the time of December of 2002; is that correct? BOYER: I don't know that for a fact, sir. No. P. HARRIS: You do not know that? BOYER: No. P. HARRIS: Were you aware that when she did vehicle trail with Merlin, she did them with the windows down? BOYER: I don't know that for a fact, sir. P. HARRIS: So as far as vehicle trails, are were concerned with Miss Valentin, you weren't really keeping a very close eye on how she was doing, or how she was even performing the test, were you? BOYER: Not true, sir. No. P. HARRIS: I'm sorry, you said not true? BOYER: Not true. P. HARRIS: Well, if you can't tell us, when she was doing it, how often she was doing it, and how she was doing it, exactly what were you doing that was supervising? BOYER: I don't have her training log in front of me, sir, so I can't tell you specifically how many times, my memory, I don't have her training log memorized. P. HARRIS: Well, it was less than five, wasn't it? BOYER: I don't know that for a fact, sir. I don't have her training log in front of me. P. HARRIS: Miss Anderson, are you aware of how many times she did vehicle trails with her dog Trimble? BOYER: No, sir, I don't have her training log memorized. P. HARRIS: Were you aware of what her success rate was with her vehicle trails? BOYER: No, sir, I don't have that memorized either. P. HARRIS: And at no point did you sit down with either Miss Anderson or Miss Valentin and discuss their success, or their ability to do vehicle trails with their dogs, did you? BOYER: No, sir, I don't recall ever doing that. P. HARRIS: So you had no concept of their capability, of whether or not these dogs could do vehicle trails by December 2002, do you? BOYER: Yes, sir, I do have a concept of that. P. HARRIS: How did you get that concept? BOYER: That concept is based upon the certification standard set forth by the state that allows me to say that this dog is certified and it can work for me. P. HARRIS: CARDA does not require, the certification process does not require vehicle trails, does it? BOYER: No, sir, it does not. P. HARRIS: By the certification standards, you have no idea whether the dog can do a vehicle trail, do you? BOYER: I believe, sir, that the assumption that you are making as a vehicle trail is not a trail. They are trailing dogs. That vehicle trail is different than any other trail, per se. P. HARRIS: You were going to testify to this court today that a vehicle trail is the same as any other type of trail? BOYER: A vehicle trail is a trail, sir. P. HARRIS: So it's the same as every other type of trail? BOYER: No. Each type of trail has its own nuances; but a vehicle trail is a trail. P. HARRIS: Captain Boyer, you are a person who goes to seminars around the country discussing, sitting in on dog trailing, correct? BOYER: Yes, sir. P. HARRIS: You read literature on dog trailing? BOYER: Yes, sir. P. HARRIS: You do research on dog trailing, I would assume? BOYER: Yes, sir. P. HARRIS: You were aware that in the community of dog trailers, that vehicle trailing, the majority of people do not believe that vehicle trailing is a legitimate trailing possibility; isn't that true? BOYER: No, sir. P. HARRIS: That is not true? BOYER: No, sir, it's not. P. HARRIS: Okay. You are familiar with Andrew Rebmann, are you not? BOYER: Yes, sir, I am. P. HARRIS: In fact, you have attended several of his, I wouldn't say several. You have attended seminars that he has taught? BOYER: I have attended two of his cadaver search seminars, yes, sir. P. HARRIS: And you are familiar with the fact that Mr. Rebmann is considered one of the leading authorities in the country on dog trailing? BOYER: Yes, sir. P. HARRIS: In fact, in many cases he's considered sort of the dean of dog trailing; is that a fair statement? BOYER: No, sir, it's not. P. HARRIS: He's written the book, literally, on dog trailing. BOYER: No, sir, I have, I'm not aware of a book that he's written on dog trailing. P. HARRIS: You are not aware of any book he's written? BOYER: I'm aware of a book he's written. It's not on dog trailing, sir. P. HARRIS: You are aware that when you attend these seminars, that Doctor Rebmann, for example, just use him, Doctor Rebmann has stated in these in seminars that vehicle trailing is the equivalent of, the modern day equivalent of voodoo? BOYER: I have not heard that, sir, no. P. HARRIS: You have never heard him talk about that in a seminar? BOYER: No, sir, I have not. I have never attended a trailing seminar whether he spoken about that. P. HARRIS: So in your experience, your research, your entire background dealing with vehicle trailing, it is your opinion that the majority of dog handlers in this country feel like vehicle trailing is a legitimate process. BOYER: No, sir, I didn't say that. I'm sorry, but I don't know the majority of the dog handlers in the United States. And the information that I have received on who believes and who doesn't believe that car trailing can be done is a very mixed bag. P. HARRIS: It's a mixed bag? BOYER: Yes, sir. P. HARRIS: There are certainly a lot of people who think that it's clearly not a legitimate process? BOYER: I have heard people say that, yes. P. HARRIS: You have heard a lot of people say that, and the research shows a lot of people saying that, doesn't it? BOYER: No, sir, it does not. P. HARRIS: When you were dealing with Miss Anderson and Miss Valentin in terms of the capabilities of these dogs to do vehicle trailing, I believe your testimony was you had neither spoken to them about it, you had, you did not know how they were going about doing it, you did not know how often they were doing it, correct? BOYER: No, sir, it's not. My testimony was that I did not have their training log memorized. And I do know how they had done some, but I did not know how many they had done. You had not asked earlier about the process by which they had done it, specifically. P. HARRIS: That was my question, or my question earlier was, you don't know, I asked you specifically how many times has the vehicle trailing been done on Miss Valentin, you said no, correct? BOYER: That's a quantity question, sir. And I said I didn't know the quantity. P. HARRIS: That's true. Then I asked you, have you ever sat down with Miss Valentin and sat down with Miss Anderson and discussed vehicle trailing, and you said, no, you hadn't? BOYER: No, sir, I have not. P. HARRIS: And I asked you in terms of have you ever, strike that. I asked you specifically, were you aware of the fact that Miss Valentin was doing vehicle trailing with the windows down, and you said you didn't know that, correct? BOYER: And that's a specific instance. And I don't know that she does it with the windows down. No, sir. P. HARRIS: So you don't know how she's doing it, you don't known how many times she's done it, and you don't have a clue, because you haven't talked to them about it; is that correct? BOYER: No, sir. D. HARRIS: Assumes facts not in evidence. JUDGE: It's repetitive. He already said thathe never discussed it. You haven't discussed the manner in which they conducted these vehicle trails with either one of these handlers? BOYER: No, sir. But I have attended a training when they did it in front of me. JUDGE: I'm talking about them specifically on this particular instance? BOYER: Nothing. P. HARRIS: Let me go to that question. You attended a training where you saw them do a vehicle trail? BOYER: Yes, sir. P. HARRIS: Which dog, which, let's start with Miss Valentin. Was it with Merlin? BOYER: Yes, sir, it was. P. HARRIS: You attended a training with Merlin, actually you performed a vehicle trail? BOYER: Yes, sir. P. HARRIS: Do you recall approximately what date? Do you have a date in mind? BOYER: No, sir, I don't. P. HARRIS: Okay. Do you recall that when that test was done the windows were, in fact, down? BOYER: No, sir, I don't know that. The car left before we actually ran the trail, so I don't know what condition the car was in when it left. P. HARRIS: Did you feel like that would be an important factor to know? BOYER: Not when the victim was in the trunk, sir. P. HARRIS: You didn't feel like it would matter whether the windows were down whatsoever, if the scent was coming out? Just didn't matter? BOYER: No, sir. I said the victim was in the trunk. I don't recall , I don't believe that the windows would have mattered at that point. P. HARRIS: Why would the windows, specifically notes were made that the windows were down? BOYER: I don't know, sir. P. HARRIS: When you attended the vehicle trailing with Miss Anderson, do you have a date approximately when that was? BOYER: No, sir. P. HARRIS: Which dog was it? Was it Trimble? BOYER: It was Trimble, sir. P. HARRIS: And was this the test that Trimble failed, or the test that Trimble succeeded on? BOYER: I have never been where Miss Anderson has tested her dog. I have never been to any of her certifications tests. P. HARRIS: The only dog that you are aware of in terms of actually testing was Merlin? BOYER: No, sir. I have seen the documents that say that Trimble has been certified by the state. I just did not attend that test. Training that I attend with Miss Anderson was not a test, it was a training. P. HARRIS: Mr. Boyer, certification process for the state does not require vehicle training, does it? BOYER: No, sir, it does not. P. HARRIS: So by looking at the certification, you can't tell a single thing about the dog's ability to trail the vehicle, can you? It doesn't test it, does it? BOYER: No, sir, it doesn't. It doesn't tell you that the dog has four legs either. P. HARRIS: But you can tell that, can't you? BOYER: Yes, sir. P. HARRIS: Okay. So you can look at the dog and see that it has four legs? BOYER: Yes, sir. P. HARRIS: Can you look at the poodle down in the mall at the local dog store and say you can tell that dog can vehicle trail a car? BOYER: No. P. HARRIS: You can't? BOYER: No, sir. P. HARRIS: You need to know, you need to train the dog a little at a time. BOYER: Yes. P. HARRIS: You didn't do that, did you? BOYER: I didn't train a dog in trailing, sir. P. HARRIS: Thank you. Miss McCoy, again a Ms. BOYER: Yes. P. HARRIS: Ms. McCoy, did she have a trailing dog as well? BOYER: No, sir. P. HARRIS: Did she have a trailing dog? BOYER: No, sir. P. HARRIS: What is she? BOYER: She's an air scent, or wilderness search dog. P. HARRIS: And is it Mr. or McAllen? BOYER: Ms. McAllen. P. HARRIS: Miss McAllen, does Miss McAllen have a trailing dog? BOYER: No. An air scent dog. P. HARRIS: Miss McCoy and Miss McAllen have air scent dogs? BOYER: Yes, sir. P. HARRIS: And wilderness training dogs, what's the term, wilderness? BOYER: It's referred to interchangeably as area search dog and air scent dog, or wilderness dog. P. HARRIS: And, now, I believe you have, as a dog handler, you are a dog handler yourself; is that correct? BOYER: Yes, sir. P. HARRIS: You began handling dogs yourself what year? BOYER: I started training my dog in 1996. P. HARRIS: Do you have the one dog then? BOYER: I trained one dog and certified it in cadaver. I began training a second dog in trailing, and after a year it developed hip dysplasia, and I had to retire it. It couldn't work any further. P. HARRIS: So you don't have a trailing dog? BOYER: No, sir, I do not. P. HARRIS: So in the Contra Costa County Sheriff's Office search and rescue team, there are two dogs that basically trail. That would be Merlin and Trimble? BOYER: We have two certified trailing dogs on our team, yes, sir. P. HARRIS: And Merlin would be it is most recently certified? BOYER: I don't have the dates of their certification, sir. I can't tell you that. P. HARRIS: When you received the call, if you want to refer to your report. When you received the call, it was December 26th, in the morning; is that correct? BOYER: It was late morning, yes, sir. P. HARRIS: And who did you receive the call from? BOYER: Initially I received the call from Lieutenant Slaviero with the Contra Costa County Sheriff. P. HARRIS: Is that somebody you are familiar with? BOYER: He's in my chain of command, yes, sir. P. HARRIS: What specifically did he tell you at that point? BOYER: He said that there was a missing person in the Modesto area, that Modesto Police Department was asking for mutual aid, and did we have any trailing dogs available to go in. P. HARRIS: And how did you respond? BOYER: I said I would call the trailing handlers and see if they could get out of work and go there that day. P. HARRIS: And who, did you call Miss Anderson first? BOYER: I don't recall who I called first, sir. I could have paged them through our paging system at the same time. P. HARRIS: When the request came in, did they just want a trailing dog? That was the phrase used? BOYER: That's what Lieutenant Slaviero told me, yes, a trailing dog. P. HARRIS: At that point nobody told you, or said we're looking for a dog that can trail vehicles? BOYER: No, sir. P. HARRIS: In fact, that was never brought up at that point, was it? BOYER: No, sir. P. HARRIS: At some point, well, do you have a recollection, you said you may have paged both at the same time. Do you have a recollection of how it came about that Miss Valentin ended up being the person chosen to go to Modesto? BOYER: She was available, sir, probably. P. HARRIS: So she, to the best of your recollection, was first one to call back? BOYER: She was the available one at that point. Probably wasn't the first one that called back, but she was available at that point with her trailing dog. P. HARRIS: Okay. At this point, were you aware that Miss Valentin and Merlin had only had one training run in the last two months due to Miss Valentin's injury? BOYER: No, sir. P. HARRIS: So you weren't aware of Miss Valentin's injury? BOYER: I was aware of her injury, but I didn't know how many runs that she had done in training. P. HARRIS: Given the fact that you are aware she was injured, you knew she couldn't participate for at least a time, didn't you? BOYER: Yes, sir. P. HARRIS: And that time period was supposedly before December of 2002? BOYER: Yes, sir, it was. P. HARRIS: You had sent, strike that. As far as Merlin's being sent out on past searches, you were aware that, in fact, Merlin had only been successful twice, whereas he had been sent out a number of times? I think the phrase used was in the teens. BOYER: I don't know that for a fact, sir, no. P. HARRIS: You don't know what his success rate was? BOYER: I don't remember. I don't review the success rate on a regular basis, no, sir. P. HARRIS: Doesn't much matter how far successful they are? BOYER: Yes, sir, it does. I'm sorry you would have to clarify what you mean by success, for me to be able to say success rate. P. HARRIS: We're going to discuss success. BOYER: All right, sir. P. HARRIS: Okay. When you got the phone call from Miss Valentin, she told you she would be available that afternoon? BOYER: I developed a small team to go to support the trailing dog, and we left about 1:30 that afternoon. P. HARRIS: And was it your understanding that they were wanting somebody there immediately? BOYER: They wanted somebody as soon as we could get there, yes, sir. P. HARRIS: And, in general, from your experience in search and rescue teams, the quicker you can get there, the better chance you are going to have of finding the person; is that a correct statement? BOYER: Yes, sir, in general. P. HARRIS: In terms of doing searches, you want to get people there quickly and get them moving on the process, correct? BOYER: Yes, sir. P. HARRIS: Okay. Do you recall approximately what time you arrived? BOYER: In Modesto? No, sir. P. HARRIS: In Modesto. I'm sorry. BOYER: No. P. HARRIS: Was it still light outside? BOYER: It could have been. P. HARRIS: I believe you went to the command center first; is that correct? BOYER: Yes, sir. P. HARRIS: And at that point you were escorted over to the house, or told how to go to the house? BOYER: We were told what the address was, and we pulled out the map books and found our way over there. P. HARRIS: You arrived at the house. When you arrived, who was present there? BOYER: At the house itself? P. HARRIS: At the house itself. BOYER: We came up to the house, and we were met by Detective Brocchini. P. HARRIS: Was Detective Grogan also there? BOYER: Yes, he could have been. P. HARRIS: You do know Detective Grogan? BOYER: Yes, sir. P. HARRIS: When you say could have been, he was, in fact, there? BOYER: When, the first person I met outside the house was Detective Brocchini. The other detective was inside the house. I don't think he was outside where we met and spoke. P. HARRIS: And the other detective is Detective Grogan? BOYER: Yes. P. HARRIS: As far as family members, when I say family members, when you went inside were you introduced to Scott Peterson? BOYER: Yes, sir. P. HARRIS: And there were other family members of Mr. Peterson present, were there not? BOYER: There were other people that came in while we were there, yes, sir. Or they were there already. P. HARRIS: Were you introduced to his mother and his father? BOYER: Yes. I believe his father. P. HARRIS: Do you recall that? BOYER: I don't recall that, sir. P. HARRIS: Now, at this point when you are arriving at Covena, it's understood that you are, I'll rephrase that question. Are you in charge of the operation as far as the search at this point? BOYER: No, sir. That was Sergeant Cloward. P. HARRIS: Okay. And as far as the team from Contra Costa, were you the person in charge of the team? BOYER: Yes, sir, I was. P. HARRIS: So you were the person that they were talking to first, they would ask the questions about, or find out things, come to you first, right? BOYER: Yes, sir. P. HARRIS: And, in fact, you were the person who asked to get the items, the possible scent items. You asked Detective Brocchini or someone there about getting scent items, correct? BOYER: I explained to him that we would need some articles for the trailing dog, yes, sir. P. HARRIS: And you asked permission to take the items that were associated with Laci Peterson? BOYER: I asked permission to gather some scent articles that were relative to Laci Peterson's scent, yes, sir. P. HARRIS: You collected a hairbrush? BOYER: Yes, sir. Not personally. But it was collected in my presence. P. HARRIS: Who collected it personally? BOYER: I believe it was Miss Valentin. P. HARRIS: And she collected a pink slipper as well? BOYER: Yes, sir. P. HARRIS: And she collected a pair of eyeglasses and glass case? BOYER: I participated in collecting that with her, yes, sir. P. HARRIS: You say you participated. You went through the purse? BOYER: Yes. P. HARRIS: Did you actually handle the glass case? BOYER: With a gloved, latex gloved hand, yes, sir. P. HARRIS: You had latex gloves on your hand? BOYER: Yes, sir. P. HARRIS: You watched her collect these three items, the hairbrush and pink slipper, the pair of sunglasses, and you watched her take those items. And what did she do with them at that point? BOYER: She actually collected four items. There was also another slipper that was collected. They were placed in plastic individual plastic bags. I believe that she labeled the bags, and then we walked out to the living room. P. HARRIS: Well, what, in actuality when you say she collected another item, the brown slipper, isn't it true that you asked, you specifically asked for one article of clothing belonging to Scott Peterson? BOYER: That could be true, sir. I don't recall that specifically. P. HARRIS: I'm going to direct you to the report to refresh your recollection. Take a look at the first paragraph. BOYER: Yes, sir. P. HARRIS: Does that refresh your recollection? BOYER: Yes, sir, it does. P. HARRIS: So you specifically asked for an article of clothing belonging to Scott Peterson, correct? BOYER: Yes, sir. P. HARRIS: That article of clothing did not get out of the house by accident, did it? BOYER: I'm sorry, sir? P. HARRIS: That article of clothing was not taken out of the house by accident, was it? BOYER: We purposely took everything out that we did, yes, sir. P. HARRIS: You purposely wanted that article of clothing of Scott Peterson's, correct? BOYER: It's common for us to take other family members' clothing articles, yes, sir. P. HARRIS: The order in which it was collected, the items were collected, the pink slipper was collected first; is that your recollection? BOYER: Yes, sir. P. HARRIS: The brown slipper was collected second? BOYER: No, sir. I believe it was collected last. P. HARRIS: What do you believe was collected second? BOYER: I believe we collected the glasses case second. P. HARRIS: Okay. And then you believe you collected a hairbrush after that? BOYER: Yes, sir. P. HARRIS: Then it's your testimony that after you collected those three items, you collected the brown slipper fourth? BOYER: Yes, sir. P. HARRIS: At some point, did you ask, or did someone ask permission from Scott Peterson to take these items? BOYER: Yes, sir, we did. P. HARRIS: Scott was pleased to provide those items. He turned them over immediately; in fact, pointed to certain items, correct? D. HARRIS: Objection. Compound. Calls for, JUDGE: It is compound. P. HARRIS: I'll rephrase. Mr. Peterson actually directed you to certain items? BOYER: Mr. Peterson said we could take certain items. We asked him to come into the bathroom to point out which hairbrush was Miss Peterson's, yes. P. HARRIS: He did that, didn't he? BOYER: Yes, sir, he did. P. HARRIS: In fact, it was Mr. Peterson who explained to you whose slippers were whose? BOYER: Yes, sir. P. HARRIS: You put on a pair of rubber gloves while you were conducting this scent collection, correct? BOYER: Yes, sir. P. HARRIS: And Miss Valentin also had on rubber gloves during the scent collection? BOYER: Yes, sir. P. HARRIS: Anybody else have on rubber gloves? BOYER: I believe Miss Anderson had on rubber gloves. P. HARRIS: Was she helping out as far as the collection, BOYER: Yes, sir. P. HARRIS: , of items? At no point did you ever see Miss Valentin change gloves, did you? BOYER: I don't recall, sir. P. HARRIS: You have no recollection? BOYER: No, sir. P. HARRIS: Did you switch gloves? BOYER: Yes, sir. P. HARRIS: After the handling of each item? BOYER: Yes, sir. P. HARRIS: You testified yesterday that the, Mr. Peterson, asked for a receipt for the items. Do you recall that? BOYER: Yes, sir, I do. P. HARRIS: Do you recall today that, in fact, it was you who offered to put together a receipt for Mr. Peterson? BOYER: I did offer, after he asked for it. P. HARRIS: After he asked? BOYER: Yes, sir. P. HARRIS: So he actually asked you, "I'd like a receipt," then you said, "I'd like to give you a receipt"? BOYER: No, sir. There was a conversation between him, the gentleman who was identified to me as his father, a gentleman who was later identified to me as Mr. Lee, an attorney, and he had asked them, "Should I get a receipt? Do you think I need a receipt?" He said, "I need a receipt." I said, "I can probably give you one." Then I found a property receipt and filled it out. P. HARRIS: In fact, the conversation you overheard with his father, he was discussing the fact that two days previously police officers had come to his home without a search warrant and surreptitiously taken items from his house without telling him? D. HARRIS: Objection, your Honor. P. HARRIS: That's the conversation you overheard, correct? D. HARRIS: Objection. Hearsay. Assumes facts not in evidence. JUDGE: Goes to his state of mind. Not being offered for the truth that he did, in fact, do that. If he heard the conversation, that might have influence as to the state of mind of the defendant. You can answer the question after that long explanation. BOYER: Thank you sir. I didn't know that they had done that previously. And I might, my recollection is that discussion was specifically about the scent articles that we had in front of us. P. HARRIS: You didn't hear that part of conversation where they were just asking it? BOYER: I didn't hear any part of that, no, sir. P. HARRIS: You indicated that it was, well, you reached into the purse to look specifically for a pair of sunglasses? BOYER: No, sir. P. HARRIS: What did you look in the purse for? BOYER: I was looking in the purse to see if Miss Peterson had taken her ID with her, or other items. P. HARRIS: Why did you consider that important? BOYER: One of the things that we look for is the state of mind of the subject that we are looking for. Leaving behind personal items, if someone is depressed, this may mean that they are looking to commit suicide. If they take items with them, we also want to know, as we're working along the dog trails, what items might be of evidence that we find along the way. So if we're walking along the trail, and we find a purse or ID that we know that's missing from the house, that we can secure that as a crime scene. P. HARRIS: As you are going through the purse, you are touching numerous items, obviously? BOYER: Yes, sir. P. HARRIS: And at what point did you decide to take the sunglasses out of the purse? BOYER: As I went through the purse, I looked at each item and saw what it was, opened it up to make sure that I knew what we were looking for. P. HARRIS: This was you specifically who did this? BOYER: Yes, sir, it was. P. HARRIS: Miss Valentin says it was her, then she is just incorrect? BOYER: We were working together, sir. I was holding the purse and pulling things out and showing them to her. P. HARRIS: She was handling the sunglasses and the glasses case wasn't, she? BOYER: When she finally decided that the sunglasses would be a good scent article for her to use, then I had given it to her, yes, in a closed state. P. HARRIS: And at that point she had already handled the brown slipper, correct? BOYER: That's not my recollection. That was the last thing we collected. P. HARRIS: If she testifies, in fact, she had handled the brown slipper first before, would that refresh your recollection? BOYER: Then one of us is incorrect, sir. My recollection is the brown slippers was last. P. HARRIS: You did, in fact, see her handle the brown slipper, didn't you. BOYER: No, sir, I don't believe I did. P. HARRIS: From your recollection, Miss Valentin didn't search through the purse, didn't pull the sunglasses out of the purse and didn't touch the brown slipper; is that your recollection? BOYER: She didn't personally search purse. She did not pull the sunglasses case out of the purse. I'm sorry, what was the third part of the question? P. HARRIS: She never touched the brown slipper? BOYER: No, sir, I don't believe she ever touched the slipper. P. HARRIS: Did she ever touch the hairbrush? BOYER: Yes, sir, I believe she did. P. HARRIS: The dog was, Merlin, was presented with the sunglasses. That was the choice made to, at least for the first scent; is that correct? BOYER: I wasn't there at the time, but I am aware through Miss Valentin's report that she did present the sunglasses as the scent article at the house. P. HARRIS: Well, maybe I should clarify that then. When you say you weren't there, you participated, obviously, in the collection? BOYER: Yes, sir. P. HARRIS: And then I assume when the dog is actually scented. You don't necessarily, not necessarily there present? BOYER: Not standing next to her, no, sir. P. HARRIS: Back in the house? BOYER: No, sir. I was in the area where we were stopping traffic and moving the press back to give the dog an area to work. P. HARRIS: Your sort of role that day was, at least in the actual search, was to act as sort of an, I don't know what the term would be, a security; is that correct? BOYER: A safety escort or security escort, yes, sir. P. HARRIS: And you were with Miss Valentin throughout the search with Merlin throughout the Covena neighborhood, correct? BOYER: Yes, sir. P. HARRIS: You were performing safety procedures? BOYER: Yes, sir. There would be times where I would be holding traffic at an intersection. They would get halfway down the block, we would catch up. So I wasn't in proximity within feet of her the whole time. P. HARRIS: So you are familiar with the route that the, that Merlin took in terms of, after picking up the scent, the route he took that day? BOYER: Yes, sir, I am. P. HARRIS: And you are familiar with the fact that he, in fact, went off into a neighbor's yard at one point? BOYER: You have to clarify that, sir. P. HARRIS: When, do you have the report, the actual report in front of you? BOYER: Dog handler's report? P. HARRIS: Yes. BOYER: No, sir, I do not. P. HARRIS: You don't. Okay. In your recollection, you recall that shortly after the dog appeared to pick up a scent, the dog veered off into a yard, a backyard; isn't that correct? Do you recall that? BOYER: Not shortly after, sir. Are you talking about a residence on , I believe it's Highland? P. HARRIS: Highland, that's correct. BOYER: See if I have a map here. My map doesn't have a name on it. I believe it was Highland, sir. P. HARRIS: Okay. And you are familiar with the dog went down several streets. I don't know if you recall the names, but I'll read them out, you can tell me if you do. Went down Santa Barbara Avenue, La Loma, cut over and went down , ended up, I can't remember the name of the street now. BOYER: I can see, if you have just showed me the map, sir. P. HARRIS: That might help. BOYER: Let me get you a color one. JUDGE: Is it Mays? P. HARRIS: That's a later one. Yosemite is the one I couldn't remember. This is People's Exhibit 9. Do you recall the, what you are looking at is a picture of the route that the dog is alleged to have taken. Does that look accurate to you? BOYER: Yes, sir. P. HARRIS: And you were present when the dog ended the search, or the search was ended at the Gallo Winery? BOYER: Yes, sir. P. HARRIS: The dog is on Santa Rosa, which is the street that the Gallo Winery is on. At that point did it appear to have dropped the scent? BOYER: Yes, sir. P. HARRIS: But yet it continued on down the street all the way down to the winery, correct? BOYER: Yes, sir. P. HARRIS: Seemed to be showing, I guess what we're, for lack of a better term, the term mild interest? BOYER: I'm not an expert on that dog, sir. I couldn't tell you. As a security escort, I'm not necessarily paying attention to the dog itself. I'm watching the perimeter, make sure we don't get run over by any wine trucks. P. HARRIS: Good point. The term mild interest, let me, just so I'm clear on this. The term itself, mild interest, would be something a dog handler would use when the dog isn't full‑force pulling but is showing some sort of, BOYER: Searching behavior, yes, sir. P. HARRIS: Searching behavior. So, for example, if a dog was sniffing and going in a direction, but wasn't pulling hard, that might be a mild interest? BOYER: Yes, sir, it might. P. HARRIS: And that, in fact, is what the dog was doing at the Gallo gate that day, correct? BOYER: That's what Miss Valentin told me. I don't know that for a fact, because I didn't see. P. HARRIS: That was, the dog was, in fact, showing a mild interest? BOYER: That's what she told me, yes, sir. P. HARRIS: And, in fact, she asked the Gallo Winery people to allow you in the gate and allow you into the area, because the dog seemed to have been showing at least some interest? BOYER: No, sir, she did not. I did. P. HARRIS: You asked for that? BOYER: Yes. P. HARRIS: That was because she told you the dog seemed to show some mild interest there? BOYER: She asked if we could get the gate open, and I said I would try and see if that would happen. And we were able to accomplish that. P. HARRIS: You were later asked to go to Scott Peterson's warehouse? BOYER: Yes, sir. P. HARRIS: And did you drive yourself? BOYER: Yes, sir, we did. P. HARRIS: You took out a map and drove to where it showed you? BOYER: We followed Detective Brocchini. P. HARRIS: When Detective Brocchini went from the location over to the warehouse, did he drive down Highland, drive through a backyard, then did he then go down Santa Barbara, turn on La Loma Avenue, cruise down Yosemite, come back to, excuse me Santa Cruz, stop at the Gallo Winery? Is that how Detective Brocchini took you to the warehouse? BOYER: I'm not sure, sir. I think we might have left to the warehouse from the command post back at the park at Rock Creek Park. P. HARRIS: Which was close to the Covena location? BOYER: It's down a ways, yes, sir. P. HARRIS: Based on what you saw of the maps that day, that wouldn't be the most direct route to the warehouse, would it? BOYER: From, P. HARRIS: From the house. D. HARRIS: Objection. Relevance. And, JUDGE: I'm not sure what you are talking about. Talking about the track that Merlin took him on or the way the that Brocchini drove him to the warehouse? P. HARRIS: I'm sorry, poorly worded. The route from the house at Covena to the warehouse. You were at the house at Covena at one point, correct? BOYER: Yes, sir. P. HARRIS: And you drove over to the house, to the warehouse at some point? BOYER: Yes, sir. P. HARRIS: And you had maps. You said earlier you had maps to find the house? BOYER: Yes, sir. P. HARRIS: So you had enough knowledge to realize that that is not the path that Merlin took. It is not, by any stretch of the imagination, a direct route from the house to the warehouse, is it? BOYER: I understand your question now better, sir. P. HARRIS: Sure. BOYER: Without knowing the local lights, and traffic, and stop signs, and things like that that people get used to doing so they can turn right on red, and things like that, I would say it's not the most direct route, because you go a backward way on Highland, then to move south. So you go north initially, then go south. So ‑‑ P. HARRIS: In fact, you go in the opposite direction away from the warehouse, don't you? BOYER: For a short period of time, yes, sir, you do. P. HARRIS: You wind up at a winery which, you saw the winery didn't you? BOYER: Yes, sir. P. HARRIS: You saw the warehouse, correct? BOYER: I saw several warehouses there, yes, sir. P. HARRIS: Did they look similar? BOYER: Yes, sir. P. HARRIS: They did? Confuse the warehouse with the warehouse? BOYER: I'm sorry. I said there are several warehouses at the winery. I'm sorry. P. HARRIS: Sorry. The warehouse that Scott rented didn't look anything like the winery at Gallo, did it? BOYER: No, sir. P. HARRIS: So no one would confuse that in terms of accidentally going there, would they? D. HARRIS: Objection. Relevance. JUDGE: It's argumentative. Sustained. P. HARRIS: The search at Covena was the dog Merlin rewarded after the search at Covena? BOYER: After the trail from Covena? P. HARRIS: Yes. BOYER: Not to my knowledge, no, sir. But, again, I was the on the perimeter of the security element. I don't know everything that went on with the dog and handler itself. P. HARRIS: You certainly, in your experience as a handler, you would not have rewarded Merlin for the effort that he put out at the Covena search, would you? BOYER: I'm not an expert on Merlin, sir. P. HARRIS: I didn't ask that. I said in your experience as a handler, you would not reward a dog for the effort that, that type of effort that's put out at Covena that day would you? D. HARRIS: Objection. That's not the question he previously asked. P. HARRIS: I'll strike the previous question. JUDGE: Read read that back. (RECORD READ) BOYER: You are referring to effort versus results, sir? P. HARRIS: I'm asking you, if as a handler, JUDGE: Well, excuse me. That is a different, effort versus results. You might give the dog a bone because the dog tried hard, even though the result was, P. HARRIS: Let's ask that question. That's fair. Would you give the dog something for the effort? JUDGE: For, personally, not Merlin, but, BOYER: Personally, no, I would not sir. P. HARRIS: You do not want to reward the dog for doing something that was unsuccessful? BOYER: No. That's because you don't want to reward the dog for what is unknown. P. HARRIS: Essentially the dog doesn't know that he's been successful unless he actually locates the item that he's being asked to find, true? BOYER: I'm not in the dog's mind, sir. I don't know that. P. HARRIS: You are a trainer, aren't you? BOYER: I have trained a dog, yes, sir. P. HARRIS: You are familiar with motivation and the concept, aren't you? BOYER: In the many forms that it takes, yes, sir. P. HARRIS: You are familiar that what a dog does is, in fact how you train a dog is, is that they are successful at finding the object at the end of the trail, you provide them with a reward? BOYER: Yes, sir. P. HARRIS: You are in the dog's mind enough to know that, aren't you? BOYER: I understand their behavior enough to know that, yes, sir. P. HARRIS: Yes. In terms of the motivation in this particular situation, this particular dog, you would not, excuse me, strike that whole question. You do not reward a dog if the dog doesn't find the item you are looking for it to track, do you? BOYER: No, sir, you don't. P. HARRIS: And, in fact, the dog didn't find anything that day that supposedly would be termed a success, did it? BOYER: If you are asking if we found Laci Peterson or articles of her clothing, or things like that, that were later validated to be hers, no, we did not. P. HARRIS: And so it is highly unlikely, under that scenario, that Miss Valentin would have rewarded the dog, would she? BOYER: In my professional opinion of knowing Miss Valentin? P. HARRIS: Yes. BOYER: Highly unlikely, yes, sir. P. HARRIS: So at this point, actually, let me go to the second issue. I'll come back to that question. You have your report in front of you? BOYER: Yes, sir, I do. P. HARRIS: Do you have a recollection that after you left Covena, you went over to the command center and debriefed Detectives Brocchini and Grogan? BOYER: Yes, sir. P. HARRIS: And at that point you explained to Detectives Brocchini and Grogan, you or Miss Valentin explained to Detective Brocchini that, in fact, the dog had, you believed, picked up a sniff, a scent, correct? BOYER: Miss Valentin said she believed that her dog was trailing a valid scent trail, yes. P. HARRIS: So it was Miss Valentin that said that? BOYER: Yes. P. HARRIS: Did you back that up, or did you make any statement whatsoever as to whether you believe that? BOYER: I said that I was confident in Miss Valentin's word about what her dog was doing. P. HARRIS: And, at that point, did you suggest to Detective Brocchini that the best course of action would be to take the dogs back to Covena and begin the search again? BOYER: I don't recall that, no, sir. P. HARRIS: Is it not true that in terms of searching, and in terms of specifically Bloodhounds, that if a scent is picked up and lost, a proper procedure is to go back to the location and try again? BOYER: You would have to tell me what the point of the procedure would be, sir, for me to answer that. P. HARRIS: You picked up a scent, right? BOYER: Yes, sir. P. HARRIS: And the scent died, right? BOYER: I don't know that if the scent died, or why the dog stopped where it stopped, sir. P. HARRIS: The dog ended up at the Gallo Winery, which was not where you were looking to go, right? BOYER: We were looking to follow the trail. We had no end point in mind. P. HARRIS: When you got in, you terminated the search, or someone terminate the search? BOYER: Miss Valentin did, yes, sir. P. HARRIS: So the proper procedure would have been to go back to the house, since you picked up a scent originally, and start again from that location. BOYER: No, sir, not necessarily. P. HARRIS: Are you familiar with the National Association of Police Bloodhounds? BOYER: I'm familiar with the association, yes, sir. P. HARRIS: Are you familiar with their recommendation that that is, in fact, what you do with a bloodhound? BOYER: No, sir, I'm not. P. HARRIS: There are situations where the reason a dog isn't successful the first time, but is successful on a second attempt from the same location, is because the second time the dog has picked up the freshest scent; isn't that true? BOYER: You would have to restate that question for me, sir. P. HARRIS: Let me restate it. First time that the dog goes out and doesn't pick up, or picks up a scent, but its trails off, or search is cancelled, at least many times people go back to the location and do a second search, true? BOYER: In some cases they do. They restart the dog from the same point, yes, sir. P. HARRIS: And in some situations the second search is successful. BOYER: Yes, sir. P. HARRIS: And the reason the second search is successful is because the dog, in some cases, is picking up the freshest scent the second time. BOYER: You mean versus the first time? P. HARRIS: Versus the first time. BOYER: Yes, sir, maybe. P. HARRIS: So, therefore, the dog does not always pick up the freshest scent the first time, does it? BOYER: That would be predicated that the dog picked up an older scent versus no scent at all on the first time. P. HARRIS: That's what I'm asking. BOYER: So on the first time, we actually have two different scenarios there. The dog could have picked up no scent at all, or the dog could have picked up an older scent, yes, sir. P. HARRIS: It doesn't matter which scenario you go to. Either scenario the dog did not pick the freshest scent the first time did it, in either scenario? BOYER: It's contemporaneous sir. You would have to, you would have to state that differently for me to give you a better answer. P. HARRIS: Let's try a different one. The second attempt you stated, you testified less than two minutes ago that sometimes the second time around they pick up the freshest scent. BOYER: No, sir. Well, yes, sir, I did say the second time they pick up the freshest scent, because that's what they are trained to do. P. HARRIS: Ergo, the first time they picked up the scent was not, in fact, you testified that, in fact, they did not pick up the freshest scent the first time. D. HARRIS: Objection. That's not his testimony. P. HARRIS: That was his testimony. JUDGE: I can't hear you, Mr. Harris. D. HARRIS: That's not his testimony. P. HARRIS: That's exactly his testimony. JUDGE: I'll let him go ahead. BOYER: You are assuming there is only one other possibility for the first trail. And there is not, sir. There are two possibilities for that earlier trail. One could be that, yes, there is an older trail that the dog took, or there is no trail at all. P. HARRIS: Under either scenario, Mr., Captain Boyer, he, under either scenario, either way, whether you didn't pick up a scent, or picked up an older scent, didn't pick up the freshest scent, did it? BOYER: That would be the logical assumption, yes, sir. P. HARRIS: Absolutely. So every time doesn't include, excuse me. Strike it. The dog doesn't always pick up the freshest scent, does it? BOYER: The dog is trained to pick up the freshest scent. P. HARRIS: But it doesn't always do it, does it? BOYER: It picks up the freshest scent for where it's at at the time. P. HARRIS: That's not what I asked. The dog doesn't pick up the freshest scent every time, does it? BOYER: You would have to rephrase that question for me to answer. P. HARRIS: I can, JUDGE: You are stepping on his answer, and the court reporter can't report both of you at the same time. Mr., or, Captain Boyer, you just gave me an example where you point out that the dog may not have picked up of the freshest scent the first time. Remember? BOYER: Yes. JUDGE: Now, what he's asking you, if that's the case, and the example he gave you is, is it fair to say that a dog does not necessarily pick up the freshest scent each time? BOYER: No, sir. Not my experience. JUDGE: So your experience is that the dog always picks up the freshest scent. BOYER: Yes, sir. For the point that it's scented at. JUDGE: How would you explain the answer you just gave me? BOYER: Try to explain that, sir. JUDGE: All right? BOYER: A trailing dog is very contemporaneous. And let me try to use a quick example to tell you. It will, at a bowling alley when you are bowling, you approach the lane very closely spaced several times. If you take a trailing dog to trail someone as they were bowling along that area where you had closely spaced scents that are overlapping, that you may, when you scent the dog, if you are not scenting them right on where the freshest trail was, but you are a little over, then that is the freshest trail to the dog. When you scent the dog at that space, it doesn't, if I scented the dog here, and the freshest trail for me actually walks out that door, but there is an older trail here, that dog will follow this older trail. It doesn't know to go back to the door to find a fresher trail that I placed today, versus my trail up here on the stand yesterday. It depends. It's contemporaneous with where you scent the dog at, is what I'm trying to say. So there are cases where, with overlapping trails, a dog could start on an older trail based on that. P. HARRIS: The dog starting at the same location. That's what I asked you. BOYER: The same exact location? P. HARRIS: Same location where you said stated that, in fact, the dog, the second time could pick up a fresher scent from the same location. BOYER: I'm trying to clarify that it has to be the exact same location, and it would be the fresher scent. P. HARRIS: So it is now your testimony that every single time that dog is going to pick up the freshest scent? BOYER: That's how we train the dog. That's what we do. P. HARRIS: That's an absolute? BOYER: In my experience, yes, sir. P. HARRIS: And your research as well? BOYER: Yes, sir. P. HARRIS: Looking at your report if you would, if you would refer to that. BOYER: Yes, sir. P. HARRIS: I'd ask you, if you have gone back to the command center and, in fact, talked with the Detective Brocchini, and you replied that you had? BOYER: Yes. P. HARRIS: And Detective Brocchini asked you at that point if you would go to Scott Peterson's warehouse and have the dog try there, correct? BOYER: Actually, sir, he asked a hypothetical question of us about how a dog would work. And we answered that. Or Miss Valentin answered that hypothetical question. And then he asked us if we could do that, and it would be in the area of Mr. Peterson's warehouse. P. HARRIS: Did, in fact, Detective Brocchini at some point ask you, "I want to take the dogs to the warehouse"? BOYER: Yes, sir. P. HARRIS: Before you left for the warehouse, did Detective Brocchini ask you at any time to take the trailing dog down to the nearby park? BOYER: No, sir. I don't recall that he did that. P. HARRIS: He never asked you to trail the dog in the park, that you recall? BOYER: No, sir. P. HARRIS: He wanted to go directly to Scott Peterson's warehouse, true? BOYER: We asked to take a break first, sir. And then we did, yes. P. HARRIS: In fact, Detective Brocchini never asked you to take the dog , to go from Covena and see if you could track the dog to the warehouse, did he? Specifically from the Covena house. BOYER: No, sir, he did not. P. HARRIS: He didn't ask you to take the brown slipper, for example, that was Scott Peterson's, scent it, and see if the dog would go to the warehouse? BOYER: No, sir. P. HARRIS: In fact, he took you to an intersection that was very close to the warehouse and left you there, true? BOYER: He took us there and stayed there with us. P. HARRIS: He stayed there with you? BOYER: Yes, sir. P. HARRIS: Would you look at your report? BOYER: Yes, sir. P. HARRIS: And would you see if there is any mention in your report of going to the intersection of Kansas and Emerald, and let go the dog go there? BOYER: Can you restate the question, sir? P. HARRIS: Is there any mention in your report that you and Miss Valentin took the dog to an intersection at Kansas and Emerald and ran the dog? BOYER: No, sir, there is not. P. HARRIS: The fact that, excuse me. There is no mention in your report that the dog, in fact, went in the opposite direction from the warehouse and ended up at a storage yard, is there? BOYER: No, sir. My report says to refer to the dog handler's report for its activity. P. HARRIS: Your report, actually, on closer look, Captain Boyer, your report states you went to Covena first. Then your report states you went directly to the warehouse, doesn't it? BOYER: It says we went to Covena, then to the command post, then to the warehouse. Yes it does. P. HARRIS: It never mentioned going to the, BOYER: No. I said went to the warehouse, relying on the dog handler's report about what the dog specifically did. P. HARRIS: You did mention the fact that the dog failed to pick up a scent at Kansas and Emerald? BOYER: I have to clarify what that experiment, P. HARRIS: Your experiment would be to find if the dog could go to Kansas and Emerald and find the warehouse. That's what you were asked to do, correct? BOYER: Yes, sir. P. HARRIS: The dog went in the opposite direction and ended up stuck in a storage yard, correct? BOYER: The dog went in an opposite direction. I don't believe it got stuck in a storage yard. P. HARRIS: Dog ended up in a storage yard? BOYER: We bypassed a storage yard, yes, sir. P. HARRIS: That's where it was ended, because the dog was sniffing into the storage yard, correct? BOYER: I don't know that it was a storage yard. It was a chain-linked area. I wasn't there specifically standing there with the dog handler, but it was a chainlink area. I don't know what its purpose was. JUDGE: Didn't go to the warehouse? BOYER: No, it didn't. P. HARRIS: That entire episode was left out of your report. The fact you even went there was left out of the report, true? BOYER: Yes, sir. I said, I generalized my report, saying we went to the warehouse and relied on the dog handler's report for specifically what that dog handler was tasked to do. P. HARRIS: When you file a report, you usually generalize entire searches. You just generalize them out of the report? BOYER: No, sir, I try, D. HARRIS: Objection. Argumentative. JUDGE: Overruled. You can answer. BOYER: No, sir. I try to leave what the dog is specifically tasked to do and asked to do in the dog handler's report, because I'm not the expert on that dog. And in some cases the dog handler talks to the detective, or whoever is running the search, and they are specifically tasked to do something. I'm there to provide security at that point. P. HARRIS: You had no trouble writing the report about the warehouse, sir, did you? That's in there. BOYER: It's generalized in there, yes, sir. P. HARRIS: It's generalized. It's a report on what happened at the warehouse, isn't it? BOYER: The trailing report for that night, sir? P. HARRIS: Yes. BOYER: It says Detective Brocchini asked if we could attempt to run a trail from Scott's place of business. Cindee agreed to do it. We went to the warehouse area on North Emerald. Please see the dog handler's report on specifics surrounding the trailing activities around the place of business, which would, to me, mean Emerald and the intersection. After running the trail we debriefed with Modesto detectives and drove home. There is no real detail in there about the search for that trail. P. HARRIS: The search itself is in there? BOYER: Search itself is in there. JUDGE: You guys are talking at the same time again. P. HARRIS: The question is, the fact that you went there and did a search is in that report. BOYER: Yes, sir. P. HARRIS: And the fact you got to Kansas and Emerald is not in that report? BOYER: That's correct. P. HARRIS: Thank you. Since your expertise is scent, let me just ask you if I can clarify this. It's in your opinion that a stronger scent, well, I'll rephrase it. Which would be the stronger scent, if a person who went to a location and was there for a three to four hour, two to three hour period, or a person, the scent of a person driving by on a road, if the drive‑by on the road was actually after the person had been scented. I mean, excuse me, had been stationary. So, in other words, that was inartful. But the driving happens afterwards, but it's quick, it's fast, only takes a few seconds, versus a stationary body for two to three hours, but an older scent? BOYER: Let me restate the question, see if I answer it here correctly. If someone stops at a bus stop three to four hours on one day, and then the next day drives by, which is a stronger scent or scent pool, the bus stop where they are standing at the bus for three or four hours, or the trail where they drove by? P. HARRIS: That's close. The only difference would be that the actual driving by would be not at the actual location of the bus stop but down the road. BOYER: Somewhere else. So two separate instances? P. HARRIS: Sure. BOYER: I would say that the scent pool of the place where they were standing would be a stronger scent pool. P. HARRIS: That's because it was a longer period of time? BOYER: Yes. You build up a, by quantity and better quality of scent. So the thing is there is some other environmental factors that would be involved, but I don't think they probably play a big role in that. P. HARRIS: So there are, in fact, circumstances where the fact that a person is in an area for a lengthy period of time actually overrides a newer scent. BOYER: Provides a stronger scent, but not a fresher scent. It is an aged scent. P. HARRIS: It's a stronger scent? BOYER: It's scent, yes, sir. P. HARRIS: Are you aware that in some counties in Northern California, that search dogs are not used for searches for a person who is in a neighborhood that they walk regularly? BOYER: No, sir, I'm not aware of that. P. HARRIS: So in your opinion, that wouldn't be a problem if the person was in that area and walked frequently in that area, that it wouldn't be a problem to you? BOYER: So my understanding, your understanding is that if a person lives at a house, and that develops a very large scent pool for a period of time, you are saying that people don't use a trailing dog to trail that person out of that house? P. HARRIS: Actually the person goes out walking in the neighborhood frequently. BOYER: All right, sir. P. HARRIS: And at that point, the fact that they are frequently in the neighborhood, frequently walking there, that, in itself, eliminates the dogs from being able to scentand do the proper job they are supposed to do? BOYER: I'm not aware of other people making that decision. But that's not my experience. We do that on a regular basis successfully with the dogs. P. HARRIS: Okay. So if other counties, for example, chose not to do that, that wouldn't be your experience? BOYER: No, that would not be my experience. P. HARRIS: Let me go to the search from the warehouse. You left the warehouse, and it's my understanding basically you went south on Emerald. And do you recall reaching an intersection, the dog losing the scent? BOYER: I'm looking for a map just to make sure I have got the right place. P. HARRIS: Sure. BOYER: And I don't have a map with the street names on it for that. P. HARRIS I'm sure we have one. Do we have one? D. HARRIS: Uh‑huh. JUDGE: Probably People's 10. P. HARRIS: To answer your question, sir, would you like me to reask the question? BOYER: That's okay. The trail from the warehouse went straight out, which would be in an easterly direction, until it hit Emerald, inside the parking lot of the warehouse, and then went southbound on North Emerald Avenue. P. HARRIS: And you recall at one point Merlin slowed down and appeared to lose the scent of Laci Peterson? Do you recall that? BOYER: Trailing dogs run fast and slow, sir. We slowed down several times. But on the periphery I was the security element. I wasn't aware that the dog had lost the scent at that point, no. P. HARRIS: Well, you recall, do you recall specifically going up to Detective Brocchini, Detective Brocchini was present then, right? BOYER: Yes, sir, he was. P. HARRIS: He was actually making the run with you, wasn't he? BOYER: Yes, sir, he was. P. HARRIS: Do you recall telling Detective Brocchini that large intersections with heavy traffic, such as 132, sometimes mix the scent up and cause a problem? BOYER: I recall a conversation with Detective Brocchini explaining how intersections are worked by the trailing dog. So we wound up where we were shutting the intersection down for a period of time. When you are referring to the 132 and Emerald in your question, that would be an intersection that would be large enough and be trafficked enough that it would certainly make scenting harder there for the dog, yes. P. HARRIS: Because traffic is, I believe you told Detective Brocchini, traffic mixes up the scents? BOYER: Distributes it, yes, sir. P. HARRIS: And the heavier traffic, obviously the more problem? BOYER: Yes, sir. P. HARRIS: Are you familiar with 132? BOYER: I wasn't before, but I am now, sir. P. HARRIS: You are familiar with Highway 132. Highway 132 is an extremely heavily trafficked area, is it not? BOYER: Yes, it is. P. HARRIS: A scent on highway that trafficked would be extremely difficult, would it not? BOYER: That is a, for a better word, a soft question that I can't answer, sir, without knowing a lot of other variables. P. HARRIS: Well, let me try a couple of variables. Twelve days later? BOYER: Yes, sir. P. HARRIS: Based on normal traffic flow, about 20,000 vehicles would have gone over Highway 132. During that time period it rained three to four times. The wind factors were 10 to 17 miles an hour. Would that cause a major problem tracking a scent? BOYER: It would make it difficult, but not impossible. No, sir, in my experience. P. HARRIS: It would take an extraordinary performance by a dog under those conditions to be able to pick up a scent, would it not? BOYER: I'd have to know what your definition of extraordinary, P. HARRIS: Definition of extraordinary, it would be almost impossible. BOYER: No, sir, it wouldn't. P. HARRIS: I want to move you forward briefly to the next day, which is the 28th, in the, again, I assume you were, well, let me jump here. At some point you were asked to bring a cadaver dog back the next day? BOYER: Yes, sir, I was. P. HARRIS: Were you asked that evening or the next day? Did you get a phone call again? BOYER: We were asked that evening while we debriefed, before we left, if we could bring back a cadaver dog the next day. P. HARRIS: And did you have your cadaver dog ready to go? BOYER: No, sir, I did not. P. HARRIS: Why was that? BOYER: Because I didn't, when I go on these things, I let the other dog handlers work them if possible. P. HARRIS: Why do you allow the other dog handlers to handle them? BOYER: Because I'm a reserve deputy, and I'm armed, and the best use of me at that point in time is a security element, or an escort, or a safety escort. P. HARRIS: Based on the fact that you are teaching courses on, you do teach courses on cadaver scent, correct? BOYER: Teach a course on scent theory. Does include a portion on cadaver scent. Yes, it is. P. HARRIS: Do you teach courses with, that deal with cadaver training? BOYER: No, sir. I don't teach cadaver training. P. HARRIS: You decided to call Miss, excuse me, Miss Anderson and have her bring her cadaver dog then? BOYER: Yes, sir. She was available at that point when they asked about it. She said that she could be available the next day, and so it was convenient. P. HARRIS: What was the name of her cadaver dog? BOYER: I'd have to look at the report to see which one she brought. P. HARRIS: She has more than one? BOYER: Yes, sir. P. HARRIS: Would it be Twist? Does that ring a bell? BOYER: It could have been. I'd have to look at the report to make sure. P. HARRIS: So in terms of supervising these dogs, supervising these dog handlers, you leave it up to the volunteers to decide what dog they are going to bring. BOYER: If it's a certified dog, that's what I'm worried about, sir. P. HARRIS: Your sole concern is whether it's certified? BOYER: Yes, sir. P. HARRIS: As long as it's certified, does it matter the experience? BOYER: No, sir, it does not. At the state level, a certified dog is a certified dog. P. HARRIS: It doesn't matter the success rate the dog has had in past searches? BOYER: No, sir. P. HARRIS: You have absolute faith. As long as the dog gets its certification, that dog can do anything as far as finding what it's looking for? BOYER: You would have to qualify "anything". If a dog is certified in a certain discipline and continues to recertify every year, then that’s what I use as my bellweather to tell whether I can use it or not. <testimony missing> BOYER: Yes, sir. P. HARRIS: Can we take a break at this point? <recess> P. HARRIS: I think where we left off, Captain Boyer, was that the, you were, contacted Ms. Anderson about bringing the cadaver dog, and you think it may or may not have been Twist? BOYER: It was a cadaver dog, yes, sir. P. HARRIS: A cadaver dog; and you were requested to bring that dog, you requested to bring that dog and, to Modesto was it the 27th? BOYER: The 27th, yes, sir. P. HARRIS: Okay. Again, you were called by whom, to request this? BOYER: We were, when we debriefed the evening of the 26th, Detective Brocchini asked me if we had any cadaver dogs available, and we said we could probably get one. And Ms. Anderson said she was available, so we arranged for them to come back that next morning. P. HARRIS: So by December 26th, the evening of December 26th, Detective Brocchini was already discussing cadaver dogs? BOYER: He asked if I had one. P. HARRIS: And from that discussion, was it your understanding that Detective Brocchini, Brocchini, was desirous of having the dog search the park? Or did he make any indication? BOYER: He asked if we could search the house, the park and the warehouse. P. HARRIS: Okay. Did he at any point suggest that you search the truck? BOYER: No, sir, he did not. P. HARRIS: So coming back the next day, on the 27th, it was your understanding you would be searching the house, the, BOYER: The house and the, P. HARRIS: , the warehouse, and, I'm sorry, what was the third one? BOYER: The park. The park. Yes, the house, its surrounding yard, not just inside the house but the yard itself, Rock Creek Park, as much as we could for its size, he was unsure how much area we could clear, and I didn't know what the terrain was like inside Rock Creek; we hadn't seen it during the daylight, and then the warehouse, yes. P. HARRIS: Which did you go to first? BOYER: We showed up at the command post and were directed to go to the house first. P. HARRIS: Okay. And did you go to the house? BOYER: Yes, sir, we did. P. HARRIS: Okay. While you were, I'm sorry. While you were at the house, did you have an occasion to follow the cadaver dog into the storage shed? BOYER: No, sir, I did not. I stood outside. I was holding the Peterson dog, McKenzie, was there, and I was holding that dog back. It was in the yard, and we didn't want to disturb it and have it interact with the search dog. So I was holding the dog back while, and petting it over by the pool area. P. HARRIS: Okay. And at any point did you watch or observe what was going on in the storage shed? BOYER: No, sir, I didn't. I was, I was paying attention to the dog. P. HARRIS: You were in a different area? BOYER: I was, I was further down the patio area near the pool, past the, I believe there's a set of double doors that lead out from the house to the patio area by the pool. I was beyond those. P. HARRIS: Okay. Did you participate later on that day in a debriefing about what had gone on at the house? BOYER: Yes, sir, I did. P. HARRIS: During that debriefing, were you present to hear Ms. Anderson refer to Twist's behavior in the storage shed as a solid alert? BOYER: I don't recall her using those words, sir. P. HARRIS: Okay. Do you recall her talking about the fact that, that she said the alert was directed towards an SP, systems model SP 1 backpack chemical sprayer? BOYER: No, sir. P. HARRIS: None of that rings a bell with you? BOYER: None of that rings a bell with me, no. P. HARRIS: Do you recall Ms. Anderson debriefing a Detective Rick House , first of all, I'm sorry, do you remember a Detective Rick House present? BOYER: There were a number of detectives there, but I didn't know who, what their names were. And they were also some crime scene people there as well, and I didn't know who they were. P. HARRIS: Do you recall Miss Anderson during the debriefing telling them that the spray rig smelled like fish emulsion? BOYER: No, sir, I did not. P. HARRIS: Do you recall her telling them during the debriefing that she thought it was the chemical in that spray rig that caused the alert? BOYER: No, sir, I don't recall that. P. HARRIS: Where did you go after the house? Was it to the warehouse next? BOYER: No, sir. After the house, we went to the command post at Rock Creek Park and we searched the park. P. HARRIS: Now, Ms. Anderson not only has a cadaver dog, she also has a trailing dog, correct? BOYER: Those are two of her dogs, yes, sir. P. HARRIS: She has a trailing dog named Trimble? BOYER: Yes, sir. P. HARRIS: I believe is the name; is that correct? BOYER: Yes, sir. P. HARRIS: And Ms. Anderson was there present with Twist, the cadaver dog? She was there present with the cadaver dog? BOYER: Yes. The cadaver dog was there, yes, sir. P. HARRIS: She was not present with the trailing dog, was she? BOYER: No, sir. P. HARRIS: So it was the intention of searching, searching the park, that what you were searching for was a cadaver at that point? BOYER: Yes, sir. P. HARRIS: Not looking for a trail? BOYER: No, sir. Human remains. P. HARRIS: At that point did Detective Brocchini, was Detective Brocchini present during this? BOYER: No, sir. He was present while we searched the house. He was not present while we searched the park. Ms. Anderson and I did that on our own. We were trailed by a couple members of the media, but it was just the two of us. P. HARRIS: So Detective Brocchini never asked you to search the park, you did it on your own? BOYER: No, sir. That was part of our arrangement the night before was, when coming back, we would search all three. P. HARRIS: Okay. I'm confused when you say you did it on your own. BOYER: I'm sorry, when we did it on our own, when we got back, we debriefed with Sergeant Cloward at the command post as to what we had done. And then we said, that, you know, we're ready to search the park, is this a convenient time for you; yes, it was. He asked if we needed any help doing it. We said no, that we could do it on our own, meaning Ms. Anderson and I and her dog. We would go ahead and search the park and we didn't need one of their escorts with us or anything like that. P. HARRIS: Detective Brocchini was present during the search, the cadaver dog search of the house, correct? BOYER: Yes, sir. P. HARRIS: And he was present later on during the search of the warehouse, correct? BOYER: Yes, sir. P. HARRIS: But he decided he didn't need to be present for the search of the park? BOYER: I don't know. D. HARRIS: Objection. Objection. JUDGE: Sustained. He wasn't there. P. HARRIS: He wasn't present? BOYER: No, sir, he was not. P. HARRIS: And for how long did you search the park? BOYER: Approximately, probably, 90 minutes to two hours. P. HARRIS: Okay. And at no time, the dog did not alert at any time in the park? BOYER: I'm not the expert on the dog, sir. P. HARRIS: Well, you were there at the debriefing, correct? BOYER: Yes. P. HARRIS: And did you hear her talk about at any point the dog, BOYER: When we debriefed the search event at the park, she did not say that the dog alerted at any time. P. HARRIS: When you say that you're not the dog's handler, you're the supervisor, right? BOYER: Yes. P. HARRIS: It's your job to supervise not only Ms. Anderson but Ms. Valentin, correct? BOYER: Yes, sir, and approximately a hundred other volunteers. P. HARRIS: Sure. And essentially Ms. Anderson and Ms. Valentin are volunteers? BOYER: Yes, sir. P. HARRIS: Okay. And Ms. Anderson and Valentin don't do this full time for a living, do they? BOYER: No, sir. None of us do. P. HARRIS: Okay. And in terms of your supervising, however, you don't find it necessary to actually go into the details of what's going on as far as the search because you feel like the handler ought to be able to handle it, for lack of a better term? BOYER: The relationship between a, a dog and a handler, when that handler's trained that dog, is one that's very specific between them, and I do not train enough with them to be able to read that dog's behavior as accurately as that handler does. So I rely on the handler to communicate to me the behavior they're interpreting from the dog. P. HARRIS: And it's not your responsibility, as far as the actual search goes, to interrupt or make suggestions to the dog handler about what ought to be done? BOYER: I have a certain amount of input based upon the goals or the strategy of the search. For example, on Rock Creek Park there's a very large grassy area in the middle, playing‑field type area, and we, we distinctly did not search that because if there was a body laying there we would probably see it. And so we focused on the perimeter area, the walking path that we were told that Ms. Peterson would have taken. So I have input into how the dog is implemented, but not the search tactics the handler uses. There are a number of things, such as windage. If I would tell the handler to start the park from here to here, but the wind is at their back, the dog would be less effective than working into the wind. So there's certain things you leave to the dog handler to work out for themselves that make them use the dog the best. P. HARRIS: Well, I guess I'm confused then. Your, your ‑ - it's your responsibility to explain, for example, environmental conditions and how best to handle those environmental conditions to the handler? Is that, BOYER: No, sir. No, not necessarily. Some environmental conditions, like where is it safe to search, where is it not safe to search, where a higher priority searching area is versus a lower priority searching area, those types of things. Strict, more than tactical. P. HARRIS: So what it boils down to then is it is the part time volunteer handlers' responsibility to take control of the search and to essentially run the search? BOYER: For that search assignment, yes, sir, it is. P. HARRIS: And they're the ones who make the actual decisions as to what the dog is doing and the interpretation as to what the dog is smelling? BOYER: Absolutely, yes, sir. Pat Haris: And it's based on their beliefs as to what the dog is reacting, their sole, they are the sole person who makes the decision as to how the dog is, in fact, interpreting the scent, correct? BOYER: Yes, sir. P. HARRIS: If I may, I just want to show you an item. Do you recognize that item? BOYER: I've not seen it before specifically. I don't remember it, but it's a, I understand what the form is, yes. P. HARRIS: It's an evaluation form for CARDA that CARDA requires? BOYER: It's an evaluation form from CARDA. I don't know that CARDA requires it, per se. P. HARRIS: Do they, in this particular evaluation form does it list the handler? BOYER: Yes, sir, it does. Eloise Anderson. P. HARRIS: And the dog's listed as? BOYER: The name is Twist. P. HARRIS: Okay. And the recertification evaluation form asks a number of questions involving everything from the dog's skills to literally to how the dog's performing in certain evaluation tests? Christipher Boyer: Yes, sir. Asks a range of skills. P. HARRIS: So you, you're familiar with the form? BOYER: I'm familiar with the form. P. HARRIS: Okay. I'd like to request this be admitted as a Defendant's Exhibit. JUDGE: J. P. HARRIS: Are we up to J? JUDGE: You called it an evaluation form, or is it a reevaluation form? P. HARRIS: It's a recertification evaluation. JUDGE: Recertification evaluation. And this has to do with Twist, right? P. HARRIS: This has to do with Twist. JUDGE: Okay. That's J, next in order. D. HARRIS: And counsel indicated, he said he wanted it admitted. I'm assuming he's asking to have it marked. P. HARRIS: Marked, excuse me. JUDGE: Yes. J. D. HARRIS: All right. P. HARRIS: When one of the handlers, either Ms. Anderson or Ms. Valentin, interprets a dog's actions regarding a scent, do they come to you and, and discuss it with you, the interpretation of it? BOYER: In some cases they do. P. HARRIS: They would, for example, tell you if they had an alert, this would be one example they would tell you if they had an alert in a particular area? BOYER: There's ongoing communication between us if I'm on the search and I have a responsibility towards that, yes. P. HARRIS: And let me make sure I have the terminology. Is there a difference between a hit and an alert? BOYER: I think that, I think you have to ask that question differently for me. P. HARRIS: I'm open to suggestion. BOYER: An alert is a defined term that I'm aware of. A dog performing an alert. P. HARRIS: Uh‑huh. BOYER: I don't know what you mean by hit. In some cases I have heard dog handlers use the word hit, but it means different things for different dog handlers. I couldn't define that for you. It's not a defined term that we use that's in the education that we perform for dog handlers. P. HARRIS: It's not a typical phrase, not the right phrase for dog handlers to really use; is that, BOYER: It's not a phrase that's easily interpretable, no. P. HARRIS: Is it your understanding that when it's used by the dog handlers that do, perhaps not even dog handlers, but others, that a hit is synonymous with an alert? Or what, BOYER: Not necessarily, no. P. HARRIS: What is your understanding that dog handlers use the term hit for? BOYER: Again, a number of things, depending upon the dog handler. I've heard it used for things from slight interest to a full‑blown alert. A number of things in between. It could mean anything. P. HARRIS: Okay. You went to the warehouse after the park? BOYER: Yes, sir. P. HARRIS: And when you arrived at the warehouse, who was present? BOYER: A plethora of people. P. HARRIS: Well, let's start with Modesto police, then. BOYER: There was a crime scene van there with about a half dozen crime scene people. Detective Brocchini was there. A gentleman I believe was introduced to me by the name of Detective Dodge Hendee was there. There were a number of other people there in uniforms that I don't know their names. P. HARRIS: Okay. And what was your function at the warehouse? BOYER: My function at the warehouse was to help the dog handler keep the dog safe. Again, I was an escort for the dog handler. P. HARRIS: What would be, I'm not being facetious; what would be dangerous at the warehouse? BOYER: In buildings in general, not just this warehouse but in general because going into a building is an unknown for us; rat poison contains a chemical that can kill a dog within minutes. It, it's very dramatically debilitating to them and very poisonous to them. When we work in buildings, the dog works off leash and so sometimes it moves around and it's not always there with the handler. It runs down the hall, et cetera. It's helpful to have another set of eyes there to make sure the dog doesn't put anything in its mouth or do anything that would put it at risk. If we work in arson, or something like that, there may be holes in the floor that we stand in front of so if the dog comes near us, we protect the dog from falling through the hole, et cetera. P. HARRIS: Okay. Was the dog working off leash at the warehouse or on leash? BOYER: Yes, sir, it worked off leash the whole time. P. HARRIS: Okay and what was the scent that was used to, what was the scent item that was used? BOYER: This was a cadaver dog, sir. There's no scent item required for that. P. HARRIS: Oh, I'm sorry. Excuse me. The cadaver dog was there for approximately how long. BOYER: Approximately 45 minutes to an hour. No more than that. And I'm saying working. We were standing outside for quite a while while the crime scene people documented the warehouse before we went in. P. HARRIS: Okay. And the actual, as far as the dog, as far as the dog finding anything, picking up a scent, were you able to observe the dog's actions in, BOYER: Not at all times, no, sir. P. HARRIS: Okay. BOYER: It was, the warehouse was very cluttered and, and it was hard to actually move around and see the dog the whole time. So I tried to stay back the towards the, the office area, the area that we actually entered, so if the dog came back that way, towards the door, I was there. P. HARRIS: At any point did you see the dog alert? BOYER: No, sir. P. HARRIS: Later on you attended the debriefing where the warehouse search was, the cadaver search was discussed? BOYER: No, sir. There's, we debriefed on scene with the detectives and left from there. P. HARRIS: Okay. When you debriefed on scene, you debriefed with Detective Dodge Hendee and Detective Al Brocchini? BOYER: I honestly couldn't tell you. Ms. Anderson spoke with them directly. P. HARRIS: So if Detective Brocchini for, strike that. When Detective Brocchini was present at the warehouse, you didn't actually see if Detective Brocchini was involved in the actual debriefing? BOYER: No, sir, I did not. P. HARRIS: So if Detective Brocchini had received any information about the search, it would have come from Ms. Anderson? BOYER: Yes, sir. P. HARRIS: Would not have come from you? BOYER: No, sir. P. HARRIS: Detective Hendee, if he received any information about the search, it would have come from Ms. Anderson? BOYER: Yes, sir. P. HARRIS: And it would not have come from you? BOYER: No, sir, it would not have. P. HARRIS: You don't recall being present and actually hearing, or do you? Do you recall being present and hearing the debriefing? BOYER: I was present for a very short period, for part of it, and then I went back to our vehicle to, to load it up and get ready to go back. P. HARRIS: Okay. Do you recall Ms. Anderson, in the parts you heard, at any point telling Detective Brocchini that the dog had hit three separate times? BOYER: No, sir, I did not hear that. P. HARRIS: Did you hear her tell Detective Hendee the dog had hit one time? BOYER: No, sir. P. HARRIS: Did you ever hear her tell Detective Brocchini the dog alerted three times? BOYER: No, sir. P. HARRIS: Did you ever hear her tell Detective Hendee the dog alerted once? BOYER: No, sir. P. HARRIS: You testified earlier you read reports after they were filed by both Ms. Valentin and Miss Anderson, correct? BOYER: Yes, sir. P. HARRIS: And when you read Ms. Anderson's report, did you see any mention that the dog had alerted? BOYER: I don't recall that, but if you give me a copy of the report, I'll re‑read it. P. HARRIS: I'll give you a copy. Give me one second. (Pause in proceedings.) D. HARRIS: Your Honor, to save the time, I would impose an objection that it would be improper impeachment. He's attempting to impeach Ms. Anderson with her report through another witness. JUDGE: I think so. P. HARRIS: I'm, what I was asking was if he was, he says, he has testified he is aware of the reports, that he in fact looked over the reports, and he has testified in terms of refreshing his recollection he needs to see the report, and I'm going to provide it to him. JUDGE: Okay. All right. P. HARRIS: Take a look at the last paragraph. I believe refers to the warehouse. JUDGE: What did you just show him, for the record. P. HARRIS: This is, for the record this is a report by Eloise Anderson of the Contra Costa sheriff and rescue team regarding the search, the cadaver dog search of the house, the park and warehouse. JUDGE: Okay. BOYER: I've read the last paragraph, sir. Go ahead. P. HARRIS: Does that refresh your recollection that there were, in fact, Ms. Anderson wrote there were no alerts at the warehouse? D. HARRIS: Objection, your Honor. Again, he's attempting to impeach her with someone else's report, and it's improper impeachment. He said he didn't hear that. So he's attempting to have the report read into the record. P. HARRIS: He is stating he read it. He has read the reports. D. HARRIS: I've read the reports, that doesn't make it proper impeachment. JUDGE: I think he's right, P. HARRIS: I'll restate it, then. Court Reporter: Excuse me. Excuse me. I'm sorry, Judge, I didn't hear what you said. JUDGE: Actually I said I think he's right, referring to this. I'm going to sustain the objection. P. HARRIS: You read the reports that were prepared by Miss Anderson about the day's activities, correct? BOYER: Yes, sir. P. HARRIS: Okay. Now, do you recall at any point Miss Anderson telling you that the dog had alerted in the warehouse? BOYER: No, sir. P. HARRIS: And from your recollection of reading the reports, do you recall Miss Anderson having recorded that there was no alert at the warehouse? D. HARRIS: Objection. Same grounds. When he's referring to her report, P. HARRIS: Asking for his recollection, if he remembers it. D. HARRIS: His, JUDGE: I'll ask you if he remembers her ever saying that. BOYER: I never remember Ms. Anderson saying that her dog had alerted in the warehouse. P. HARRIS: No, I was asking if you recall reading it. BOYER: I recall reading her report, yes, sir. P. HARRIS: The following day, the 28th, you were asked once again to put together a search team, correct? BOYER: Yes, sir. P. HARRIS: And, first of all, who requested this search team? JUDGE: Talking about December 28th? P. HARRIS: December 28th. BOYER: Actually, very little on the, on the evening of the 27th, Detective Brocchini asked me if there was such a thing as a water dog, or if dogs could find human remains under water. I told him there was such an animal and that they were available to him through mutual aid, State Office of Emergency Services, if he wanted them. P. HARRIS: And did he want them? BOYER: Yes, sir. He requested them through the state OES, and I received a call from the OES duty officer asking me to put together water dogs to, to work for Modesto PD. P. HARRIS: Did they ask you to put together anything else for them? BOYER: A trailing dog, yes, sir. P. HARRIS: A trailing dog? BOYER: Trailing dog. P. HARRIS: Okay. So on the 28th did you, in fact, show up with the water dog and a trailing dog? BOYER: I showed up with a water dog and two trailing dogs, sir. P. HARRIS: And where did the second trailing dog come from? BOYER: I was able to get two. P. HARRIS: And where did you get the second one? BOYER: I got it through CARDA. P. HARRIS: And where did that second trailing dog come from? BOYER: From CARDA. Are you asking me a physical location where they drove from? P. HARRIS: No, I'm asking you the dog itself came from what organization as far as where it worked? BOYER: Worked for CARDA. P. HARRIS: Okay. Did it work for the Alameda County Sheriff's Department? Does that ring a bell? BOYER: The handler is also a member of the Alameda County Sheriff's Department, but he was requested through CARDA. Some volunteers wear multiple uniforms, and so they can have multiple affiliations with three or four sheriff's departments, CARDA, OES, Monterey Bay Search Dogs, FEMA. It depends who they were tasked through as to what uniform they wear. P. HARRIS: And who was the handler of this dog? BOYER: That was the second dog? Other than, P. HARRIS: Second, BOYER: The first dog was Miss Anderson and Trimble. The second dog was Ron Seitz, and I don't remember his dog's name. P. HARRIS: But you do recall Mr. Seitz being present? BOYER: Yes, sir, I do P. HARRIS: And you do remember him having a trailing dog? BOYER: Yes, sir, I do. P. HARRIS: And you do remember requesting that he actually search the entrance to the Berkeley Marina, do you not? BOYER: Yes, sir, I do. P. HARRIS: And you do remember having the dog scented? BOYER: No, sir, I don't. P. HARRIS: You don't have any recollection of that? BOYER: I didn't work with him when he did it. P. HARRIS: Okay. With Mr. Seitz, he arrived, you were present when he arrived with the dog? BOYER: I could have been, sir. I don't recall. P. HARRIS: Okay. You were in charge of, you were asked to be in charge once again of supervising this search, correct? BOYER: No, sir. I was just arranging to get the dogs there. P. HARRIS: So your job wasn't a supervisor on that day? BOYER: Not for the water dogs, no, sir. P. HARRIS: I didn't ask you about the water dogs, sir. BOYER: Okay. You said the dogs in general, I took it to mean all dogs. Sorry, sir. I wasn't in charge of the water dogs that day because they would be working on the water and I would not be with them, but I was in charge of the trailing dogs at that point. P. HARRIS: You were once again in charge of Mr. Seitz's dog and Ms. Anderson's dogs? BOYER: Yes. P. HARRIS: You were the supervisor? BOYER: Yes, sir, for those two dogs. P. HARRIS: And it is your testimony here today that it was Mr. Seitz, he just showed up and you said go look at the entrance and you didn't care what happened? D. HARRIS: Objection. Argumentative. P. HARRIS: Well ‑‑ JUDGE: Sustained. P. HARRIS: You were present there, weren't you? BOYER: Yes, sir, I was. P. HARRIS: At the Berkeley Marina that day? BOYER: Yes, sir, I was. P. HARRIS: And you were present with Mr. Seitz, weren't you? BOYER: He was there at the time that I was there, yes, sir. P. HARRIS: And you told him what you wanted him to do? BOYER: Yes, sir, I did. P. HARRIS: And what you told him was you wanted him to scent the pink slipper? BOYER: I told him I wanted, yes, it was the pink slipper. I asked him to, to see if he could find a trail in the Berkeley Marina. P. HARRIS: And you observed him doing that, didn't you? BOYER: No, sir, I didn't. P. HARRIS: Where were you at the time he did it? BOYER: I was in the parking lot next to the county vehicle, discussing with Miss Anderson what she was going to do with her dog. P. HARRIS: So when he, when he did the actual search, you weren't present? BOYER: No, sir, I was not. P. HARRIS: And he came up to you and reported that he found no scent, correct? BOYER: Yes, sir, he did. P. HARRIS: He, in fact, told you that the dog had run up not only the entrance but through the parking lot and come up with no sent whatsoever? BOYER: No, sir. That's not what he said. P. HARRIS: What did he say? BOYER: He said that he had checked one side near the bathrooms and that his dog showed no indication of a trail. And that was all he had done. P. HARRIS: And did he ask you to, did you ask him to write a report on this? BOYER: No, sir. There's a, I believe CARDA has a standard procedure. They're a different agency. He has his own procedures and standard operating procedures to do that. I can't tell him to write a report for that. He's supposed to do that, and then I can request it through state OES to have a copy of it sent, or Modesto PD can. P. HARRIS: Did you request a copy of that? BOYER: No, sir, I didn't. He was working for Modesto PD and I told them they could request that through CARDA if they wanted a copy of it. P. HARRIS: Okay. During his search, it was referred to in your report as a search of the entrance to the Berkeley Marina, was it not? BOYER: What part are you referring to, sir? P. HARRIS: One second. Let me strike that and ask you something different. I'm presenting you with a CARDA administrative form. Does that form look familiar? BOYER: No, sir. I've never seen this before. P. HARRIS: In that form, it lists dates and it lists, says it's changed, put together by Ron Seitz, last changed by Ron Seitz; is that correct? BOYER: Says it's an IFR for Ron Seitz for the search on 12‑28. I don't know what IFR stands for. P. HARRIS: And you have never seen this form? BOYER: No, sir, I have not. P. HARRIS: You've never seen any report filled out by Mr. Seitz about the search? BOYER: No, sir, I have not. P. HARRIS: So your only knowledge is that the dog did a search and that there was no pick‑up of a scent at the Berkeley Marina, correct? BOYER: At the area that he indicated he searched to me in a verbal report, yes, sir. P. HARRIS: How long did he search? BOYER: Probably less than ten or 15 minutes. P. HARRIS: I'm going to refer you to your report, if you would, page seven of eight. BOYER: Yes, sir. P. HARRIS: The last paragraph. BOYER: Yes, sir. P. HARRIS: Both Ron Seitz and Eloise Anderson utilized scent articles provided by Modesto PD to check for Laci's scent at the boat ramp. At the boat ramp, correct. BOYER: Yes, sir. P. HARRIS: Please see the dog handler's reports for specifics on their activities. Correct? BOYER: Yes, sir. P. HARRIS: There were no reports, were there, from detective, from Mr. Seitz, was there? BOYER: I wasn't responsible for him writing reports, sir. P. HARRIS: What exactly are you responsible for on these searches? JUDGE: Well, he's already answered that. Why don't you ask him about this search. P. HARRIS: What exactly were you responsible for on this search? BOYER: I was responsible for getting the dogs there, providing water dogs to Modesto PD and the dive team so they can take them out. I was responsible for getting the trailing dogs there and by looking, because I had never been to the Berkeley Marina before, by looking at what the situation was there, how best to utilize them to see if there was a trail there for the trailing articles we had. P. HARRIS: And so as a supervisor of the project, you're not, your responsibility is not to see that the dog handler is handling the dogs correctly, correct? BOYER: Correct. P. HARRIS: And your job is not, as a supervisor not only do you not witness what they do, but your job does not include making sure they do a correct report on what they did? BOYER: Could you restate that for me again? P. HARRIS: Your job is not to actually watch that they do the job correctly, but your job is not also to see that they write reports about what they did that day? BOYER: Two part question. First part is am I supposed to watch them to make sure they do their job correctly. No. Am I there to make sure they that they write reports. For the people that are under, in my chain of command, being Ms. Eloise, Ms. Anderson, yes, I'm responsible for making sure that she writes a report and it goes through our chain of command. Mr. Seitz is actually on mutual aid to me, so I have no control over him other than to direct him where to search and that. His reporting structure goes through the state. It doesn't go through me. So he has his own reporting structure and his own procedures to provide those reports. Just like, although I wrote reports, detectives from Modesto PD had to request them through my department. They didn't direct me to write any reports for what we did at their direction at the house, or anywhere else. So there are two different reporting structures there for some of these articles. P. HARRIS: Essentially, you're there to see if you can pick up a trailing scent for a person who is missing. Your job is with the emergency services to see if you can locate a missing woman, correct? BOYER: Yes, sir. P. HARRIS: And it's your job to try to do the best possible job to find that missing woman, correct? BOYER: Yes, sir. P. HARRIS: And part of that would be making sure that the people under you are doing the correct things in order to find the woman, correct? BOYER: Yes, sir. P. HARRIS: And the best thing, your job also would entail making sure that reports that go back to the Modesto PD who are looking for this woman are accurate and pertain the information that are important so they can make correct decisions about how to find this woman, correct? BOYER: Yes, sir. P. HARRIS: And it would be extremely problematic if, for example, it gets back to Modesto PD or does not get back to the Modesto Police Department that, in fact, no scent was found at the Berkeley Marina by a search dog? You would want them to have that information, wouldn't you? BOYER: Absolutely, sir. P. HARRIS: And you would want them to have that report wouldn't you? BOYER: Yes, sir. P. HARRIS: And as a good supervisor you would make durn sure they got it, wouldn't you? BOYER: Yes, sir. P. HARRIS: But you didn't, did you? BOYER: I don't have control over that report structure, sir. I can ‑‑ P. HARRIS: You had enough control, JUDGE: Let him answer the question, Mr. Harris. Go ahead. Finish your answer. BOYER: Thank you, your Honor. I don't have control over CARDA. I can't demand that they produce a report or send it to someone. That has to come from that agency because that's, I believe that's a policy through the state for them. P. HARRIS: You don't have to demand it; you can ask for it, can't you? BOYER: I can ask for it to be done what, sir? P. HARRIS: You can ask for the report in order to help, in order to make sure that this was done right? You don't have to demand it from CARDA, do you? BOYER: No, sir. P. HARRIS: Is CARDA some type of organization that secretive that keeps their reports away from people who are trying to help find women? BOYER: I don't know that, sir. I'm not a member of CARDA. P. HARRIS: Well, you certainly in the past have gotten plenty of help from CARDA on rescue searches and rescue operations, and so forth, have you not? BOYER: Yes, sir, I have. P. HARRIS: They've been cooperative, haven't they? BOYER: Yes, sir, they have. P. HARRIS: And you would certainly want to see that they got this information to the people who it counted? BOYER: Yes, sir. P. HARRIS: But you didn't, did you? BOYER: I instructed the detectives there that they could ask for a copy of the report through CARDA, and I gave them the contact information that they could call for that. P. HARRIS: That same day with Ms. Anderson at the marina ‑‑ BOYER: Yes, sir. P. HARRIS: , she did a, she did a search as well, and the dog alerted to certain areas, correct? BOYER: She said her dog alerted, yes. As much as a trailing dog can at that point. P. HARRIS: When you say as much as a trailing dog can, at that point it's extremely difficult, correct? BOYER: Yes. The end of the trail was the end of the trail. P. HARRIS: So it's very difficult, especially under those environmental conditions, it's very hard for the dog, near a bay with wind and so forth, it would be very difficult for a dog to, BOYER: I didn't say, P. HARRIS: period? BOYER: No, I didn't say the dog's job was difficult. In fact, some salt water environments it's much simpler. The hydroscopic nature of salt water maintains humidity and the fog in that area maintains humidity. It's much simpler and easier to work in that area, actually. P. HARRIS: Okay. BOYER: What I was referring to when I said it was harder, her trail ended at the end of a pier with water, so the dog couldn't go any further. P. HARRIS: Is that why you stated to Detective Brocchini, or to others, that this could not be a definitive conclusion on that alert with Ms. Anderson? BOYER: I didn't tell Detective Brocchini any, P. HARRIS: Or anyone? BOYER: No, I didn't tell anyone that, P. HARRIS: You never stated, JUDGE: Mr. Harris, BOYER: No, sir. JUDGE: , you're stepping on his answer again. The court reporter is going to get very angry with you. So just hold off until he finishes. Next question, please. P. HARRIS: You did not state to anyone that day that the conclusion drawn by Miss Anderson's dog could not be definitive or could not be, you want to, whatever word you choose to find synonymous with "definitive," it could not be counted on? BOYER: No, sir. I don't recall saying that to anyone. P. HARRIS: By the way, on that day was there a briefing held for several different crews as far as water dog sniffing, doing scent work in the water? BOYER: Yes. P. HARRIS: Crews from different, different counties, in fact? Let me make sure I'm clear on this because I'm not totally familiar with it, but there were other counties present at this briefing that had dogs that were water dogs? BOYER: All the dogs that showed up that day, other than Miss Anderson, who is, who is organic to my county, were CARDA dogs. They may have had other affiliations with other agencies, but they were there dispatched as dogs to state OES, through CARDA. P. HARRIS: There were, I guess what I'm trying to figure out is there were other crews there that were going to take water dogs to other areas other than just the Bay? Do you recall that? BOYER: Not on that day, sir, no. Not on the, on the 28th. I think you have your dates mixed up. P. HARRIS: I may have the dates mixed up. Let me hold on one second. Would that have been on January 4th? BOYER: It could have been January 4th. P. HARRIS: I may have the date wrong on that. BOYER: I'm looking. P. HARRIS: In that neighborhood? BOYER: It was in early January, yes, sir. P. HARRIS: Okay. And there were several different handlers and several different dogs from several different counties who were brought in and debriefed about the Laci Peterson investigation? BOYER: There were several different dogs, all dispatched through CARDA. Again, all that may have had other affiliations that I'm unaware of; but, yes, there were. P. HARRIS: And the object of this meeting was to take the dogs, the water dogs out to different bodies of water to see if they could locate her; is that your understanding? BOYER: That was my understanding, yes, sir. P. HARRIS: And was it your understanding that that, in fact, during the debriefing, that what was going to happen is these different dog handlers were going to get in boats and go out on different lakes around the area looking to see if the dogs would pick up a scent on Laci Peterson? BOYER: You mean during that briefing, not that debriefing, sir? P. HARRIS: Yes. BOYER: A water dog is a cadaver dog and that's a non‑discriminatory scenting dog. So those dogs that would be put on water in boats on different water bodies, be they a lake, a reservoir, a river. Would not be looking for a specific person scent. They would be looking for any human remains. But yes, they were there to look for human remains. P. HARRIS: Okay. So it was set up that these dogs would go out on different lakes in the area and, in fact, see if they could locate human remains? BOYER: Yes, sir. P. HARRIS: And these dogs did, in fact, go out on the marina on early January? BOYER: We're talking about two different dates now again, sir, I think. P. HARRIS: Maybe I've got you confused, then. BOYER: The, the, P. HARRIS: Maybe I can clarify. The date that you went with Ms. Anderson and the other dog handlers, you also had water dogs there that day? BOYER: Yes, we had two water dogs there that day. P. HARRIS: Okay. And they went out on the marina that day? BOYER: They went out on the San Francisco Bay that day, yes, sir. P. HARRIS: The whole area? BOYER: I don't know what area they searched, but they went out, yes, sir. P. HARRIS: Okay. And to your knowledge they didn't alert or find any type of human remains that day? BOYER: I don't know what they did, sir. They were paired up on boats with detectives from Modesto PD, and I was not there when they came back. My job was to get them there and marry them up with the detectives and the boat drivers and the marine patrol. And that was the end of my, my relationship with that part of the search. P. HARRIS: Okay. So based on, you weren't there when the results came in? BOYER: No, sir, I was not. P. HARRIS: But based on the fact you were asked a few, a few days later to come back and do additional searches, you assumed that they had not found Ms. Peterson, correct? BOYER: I assumed they didn't find any human remains based on that, yes, sir. P. HARRIS: Well, you were investigating for Laci Peterson, correct? BOYER: Yes, sir, but it's an unknown, when you work a dog that's non‑discriminatory, if it could have found a body, we wouldn't have known until DNA or other testing or other definitive things said who it was. P. HARRIS: And at that point none of those results, anything had come in whatsoever to you, to your knowledge, that indicated Laci Peterson had been found? BOYER: No, sir. Not to my knowledge. P. HARRIS: In the Bay Area during the search on the 28th? BOYER: True. P. HARRIS: The following week, the briefing I'm asking about where there's a number of dogs and a number of lakes, was the Bay also searched that day? BOYER: Not to my knowledge, sir, but I wasn't managing that part of the search. P. HARRIS: Okay. So to your knowledge it was a group of lakes around there, around the area, but not necessarily the Bay itself being searched? BOYER: Again, I'm not aware of where the assignments were made, so I couldn't speculate. P. HARRIS: And are you aware that in fact several dogs alerted at a lake that is north of the Bay? BOYER: I wasn't aware of that, no, sir. P. HARRIS: Are you aware they did a search and nothing came up? BOYER: I'm sorry? P. HARRIS: Are you aware they did a search of that area and nothing came up? BOYER: No, sir, I'm not aware of that. P. HARRIS: Are you familiar with "Too‑lock" Lake? BOYER: I'm sorry, sir? P. HARRIS: Are you familiar with "Too‑lock" Lake? BOYER: Are you referring to Tulloch Lake? JUDGE: I think it's "Tull‑luck" Lake. BOYER: I'm familiar with there's a lake named Lake Tulloch in California, yes, sir. P. HARRIS: And where is that located? BOYER: I don't know. I know there's a lake name Tulloch in California. P. HARRIS: You don't know how close it is to the Bay Area? BOYER: No, sir, I don't. Never been there. P. HARRIS: Are you familiar with Mike Hicks? BOYER: Who? P. HARRIS: The name Mike Hicks? BOYER: No, sir I'm not. P. HARRIS: Are you familiar with anybody who was at the scene, is it Tulloch? JUDGE: Tulloch. Lake Tulloch. P. HARRIS: I'll get that right, I promise. Tulloch Lake. Are you familiar with anyone who was doing a search at Tulloch Lake? BOYER: I don't know who was assigned there, sir, and I've never talked to anybody who said anything about it. P. HARRIS: How about somebody Mr. Wong? Or somebody had Wong's dogs? BOYER: I know a Bill Wong with CARDA and Mary Wong with CARDA. P. HARRIS: Okay. During the conversations with Detective Brocchini, at any point during the 26th, the 27th, the 28th, or any future conversations that you had with Detective Brocchini, at any point did he ask you to take the cadaver dogs, to arrange for cadaver dogs to be put in Scott Peterson's truck? BOYER: No, sir. P. HARRIS: At any time during those above dates did he ever ask you to go back and put the dog in the boat? BOYER: No, sir. P. HARRIS: At any point did you suggest to Detective Brocchini that the boat could be removed from the warehouse, allowed to air out for a little while and the dogs would probably have a much better chance of getting an accurate read? BOYER: I recall a discussion with Detective Brocchini about the chemicals in the warehouse and the smell inside the warehouse and, and that it would make the dog's job more difficult. But there was no result from that. P. HARRIS: Would it have made the job much more easier if the boat was removed from the warehouse? BOYER: To just specifically search the boat with the cadaver dog? P. HARRIS: Sure. BOYER: It could have, yes, sir. P. HARRIS: Okay. For example, if the boat was removed for a week, it could make, it could still, cadaver dogs could still, according to your testimony, pick up a scent, correct? BOYER: You're making a leap of faith on that. There's a great number of environmental variables about how the boat was removed and preserved; but, yes, sir. P. HARRIS: And that is the truth, isn't it, because, by gosh, those environmental conditions can play havoc with the trail, can't they? BOYER: Are you talking about a trail or a cadaver dog now? P. HARRIS: I'm talking about, BOYER: Just referring to a cadaver dog? P. HARRIS: , let's start with a trail. BOYER: Okay. P. HARRIS: Environmental conditions can just play havoc with a trail, can't it? BOYER: They can be both positive and negative for a trail, yes, sir. P. HARRIS: They can be negative in the sense if there's any type of action by the environment that moves the skin rafts around, it plays havoc with a trail, doesn't it? BOYER: You'd have to define havoc for me, sir. P. HARRIS: Havoc. Havoc means, it's a word, a term used to cause confusion. It means that when something is, has been normal, it's been messed up again. That's the definition of havoc as best I can do it without a Webster's. BOYER: So your question is if an environmental variable would move around those skin rafts, it would confuse them? P. HARRIS: My question is the environmental conditions would cause the skin rafts to literally go off the trail, to cause all kinds of problems for a dog to trail it? BOYER: Environmental variables can cause skin rafts to blow off of the track of the person, which does create the trail, yes, sir. P. HARRIS: Environmental conditions can do a lot of different things to skin rafts, can't it? BOYER: Yes, sir. I said they can be both negative and positive for that. P. HARRIS: And, in fact, as you just stated a minute ago when I asked you about the seven days, later on a cadaver dog, I'll go, skip forward to a cadaver dog, that in fact seven days, you stated, it would depend on the environmental conditions because the environmental conditions would cause, could cause problems and it would depend upon the environmental conditions, right? BOYER: Yes, sir, it would. P. HARRIS So any search, cadaver search, trail, anything, is going to be conditioned, conditioned upon what has happened with the environment in the recent past, correct? BOYER: Yes, sir. P. HARRIS: And if, for example, there has been a high wind, it could literally take a trail and blow it away? BOYER: A wind would create a trail. A high wind blowing a trail away? I think a better way to define that is a high wind would disperse the trail further. I think that's more accurate. Saying to blow a trail away would mean that it would actually physically disappear, and those skin rafts still actually exist, they're just spread out further. And so that's how, how I would have to characterize that. P. HARRIS: Well, if a skin raft is set up so that when a person let's say just walks, is walking down a sidewalk, and a skin raft falls off that person, and the wind comes up, the wind is going to blow it, a strong wind is going to blow it far enough away that a dog can't go in and pick up a scent? It's that dispersed, to use your word, correct? BOYER: That is a possibility, yes, sir. P. HARRIS: There are a number of other environmental conditions that can do that as well, correct? BOYER: To disperse the scent? P. HARRIS: Yes. BOYER: No, sir. Wind, wind being the physical force, JUDGE: What he's driving at, there are other environmental conditions that could affect the skin rafts; for example, rain, traffic. BOYER: Yes, sir. JUDGE: Sunlight. BOYER: Yes. They would either degrade or disperse it, yes. P. HARRIS: It's because of that and because of those environmental conditions that exist that when you take a dog and ask it to trail a scent, the dog, if the dog picks up a scent and seems to be sniffing it out, you have no way of knowing if that's the actual scent that you programmed the dog to follow, do you? BOYER: Because of the variable conditions, sir? P. HARRIS: Because of the conditions, the environmental conditions? BOYER: I can't adequately answer that question the way it's stated. JUDGE: Why don't up answer it the best you can. P. HARRIS: I'll reask it. Ask it so that he can answer it. A dog picking up a scent or attempting to pick up, excuse me, picking up a scent and the handler allowing the dog to go forward, trailing the dog, the dog allegedly going on a scent trail, there is no way accurately, scientifically, to know that that trail is, in fact, what they are programmed to be following, is there? BOYER: There is if they come upon the subject they're looking for at the very end of that trail, yes. There is, P. HARRIS: If you do not come up with the subject at the end of the trail, there is no way to know that that dog ever picked up that scent, is there? BOYER: Are you asking scientifically again? P. HARRIS: I'm asking scientifically. BOYER: No, sir. Scientifically there isn't. P. HARRIS: This is not a science, is it? BOYER: No, sir, it's an art. P. HARRIS: And that art is based on the handler's interpretation of what they see from that dog; isn't that true? BOYER: The handler's interpretation of the dog's behavior, yes, sir. P. HARRIS: Exactly. It's based on one person, one part time volunteer's beliefs about what a dog, not a human being, but a dog did in trailing a scent, correct? BOYER: Yes, sir. P. HARRIS: And there is no science involved? BOYER: There is science that spans parts of what we talked about, but the relationship and the actual trailing, the way you asked the question earlier, it's very much an art, yes. P. HARRIS: It's speculation; that's the term, isn't it? BOYER: I wouldn't call it speculation, no, sir. P. HARRIS: You're speculating what the dog is thinking. Do you know what the dog is thinking? BOYER: I never know what a dog is thinking. I'm, P. HARRIS: You don't, do you? BOYER: , not omniscient no, sir. P. HARRIS: The only thing you're doing is speculating on what that dog is thinking, right? BOYER: No, I'm working on the dog's behavior. It may be thinking about something else when it's doing what it's doing. P. HARRIS: That's all I have.
Redirect Examination D. HARRIS: Captain Boyer, I'm not even sure where to start. Let's, in terms of a science, you were distinguishing that this is more art than science. With regards to the dogs, and we'll just talk about the dogs here in particular, Merlin, Twist, Trimble, these are dogs that go through routine maintenance, practical exams with the Contra Costa Sheriff's Department? 1798 BOYER: Those dogs specifically, yes, sir. D. HARRIS: They're given trails that are laid and so they're given a scent and they're supposed to find a person at the end of these trails? BOYER: Yes, sir, in training they are. D. HARRIS: And they do that successfully on a routine basis? BOYER: Yes, sir. D. HARRIS: So that's not speculation, that's not guess work? BOYER: No, sir, it's not. D. HARRIS: And you were asked about that you didn't know scientifically if the dog is just going off of any particular trail. Are the dogs taught to follow a particular trail? BOYER: The dogs are trained to follow the trail based upon the scent article that they're presented at that time in that place. D. HARRIS: And the two scent dogs, or the trailing dogs that we're talking about here, Trimble and Merlin, they've done that on a reliable basis for the Contra Costa Sheriff's Department? P. HARRIS: Objection, your Honor. He stated in his own testimony he doesn't know what they did in their training. JUDGE: I think so. Sustained. D. HARRIS: In your general, JUDGE: They're CARDA dogs and the assumption is they were properly trained. D. HARRIS: In your general experience with dogs, since he was asking about that and not these dogs in particular, is it your experience that a trained dog will pick up this scent that it's been given and follow it, that particular scent on a trail? BOYER: My general experience on a trained and certified dog, yes. It will take a scent article, follow that scent to the end of that trail. D. HARRIS: Now, you were asked to, I want to go back through this, somewhere back to the beginning of the cross‑examination where you were being asked about those particular trainings with these dogs, Miss Anderson, Ms. Valentin, counting the number of trainings that they had. You didn't know the particular numbers, but have you participated with them in their actual training exercises? BOYER: Yes, sir, I have. D. HARRIS: And have you participated with both Miss Anderson and Ms. Valentin in training exercises where the subject or victim, as you want to call them, was put in the trunk of a vehicle and driven away? BOYER: Yes, sir. D. HARRIS: And both of the handlers and the dogs in that case were able to find the victim? BOYER: Yes, sir. D. HARRIS: You were asked specifically about vehicle trails, how many vehicle trails they had done. Does, for the purposes of what dogs do, does it make a difference if it's a vehicle trail? Or is it more important to refer to it as contact versus non‑contact trailing? BOYER: It's probably more important to refer to it as contact versus non‑contact. D. HARRIS: So you can have a person that rides a bike that's not in a vehicle, and that would be a non‑contact trail? BOYER: Yes, sir. D. HARRIS: And do you train with, with your dogs, the Contra Costa department, practical exercises trailing people on bikes? BOYER: I'm aware of some training that they've had where a trailing dog was used to trail a person on a bike. D. HARRIS: When you were, you were asked about the Modesto Police Department contacting you when you first went to Modesto on the 26th of 2000 and 2, December 26th, 2000 and 2, was the Modesto Police Department looking for a trailing dog at that time? BOYER: I was told by Lieutenant Slaviero, S‑L‑A‑V‑I‑E‑R‑O, that they were looking for a trailing dog or trailing dogs. We try, even when someone asks for a single trailing dog, we try to take them in pairs in case the dog gets injured a couple of minutes into the trail or some other emergency happens and we need a backup dog. D. HARRIS: So the issue whether you should have brought a dog that was better trained in vehicle trailing, was that an issue when you arrived in Modesto on that day? BOYER: No, sir, because every search that we go to is very much an unknown. We didn't know going into it that there would be a vehicle trail. All we knew was there was a missing woman. D. HARRIS: Was it after you did the debriefing with Miss Valentin that everybody learned from her, her opinion that Ms. Peterson did not walk away from that house on foot? BOYER: Yes. P. HARRIS: Objection. Calls for speculation. Move to strike. JUDGE: (Inaudible) Court Reporter: I'm sorry, Judge, what was that? JUDGE: Sustained. And strike the answer. Go ahead. D. HARRIS: Was that what you were told at the debriefing, after she ran that trail? BOYER: Yes, sir. She said that the trail that she had, what her dog's behavior indicated to her is that it was a vehicle trail, or a vehicle exit trail. D. HARRIS: You were asked specifically about the items that were collected, and I want to go through that just briefly. BOYER: Yes, sir. D. HARRIS: You indicated that you were wearing gloves? BOYER: Yes, sir, I was. D. HARRIS: When these items were selected, the slipper, the sunglasses case, the other slipper, these items, were they all put together in one bag? BOYER: No, sir. They were put into individual Ziploc bags. D. HARRIS: Did you pick them all up and carry them around the house before, before you did that? BOYER: The items, sir? D. HARRIS: Yes. BOYER: No, we tried to bag up the items and what was referred to as packaging, bagging the item as soon as we find it and we decide that that's what we're going to use, we bag it as close to the place that we found it as possible, so we don't carry it around. D. HARRIS: And that's what you recall was done in this particular case? BOYER: Yes, sir. D. HARRIS: When you were looking in Ms. Peterson's purse, were you wearing gloves at that time? BOYER: Yes, sir. Latex gloves, no cornstarch. D. HARRIS: I want to talk about a couple of hypotheticals that were given to you and cover this particular area. You were asked about a person in a boat versus somebody driving by, and you were trying to answer does a bus stop versus a person driving by, and you were told assume that these two trails weren't connected. BOYER: Yes, sir. D. HARRIS: And your answer was the dog would go to the one where there was the scent pool. What if these, what if these two were connected? BOYER: Actually I think my answer was that the scent pool would have the stronger scent, not necessarily that the dog would go there. If the two are, connected as in you had a scent pool and, you had a stronger, older scent pool, as I recall the hypothetical, a stronger older scent pool, yet you had a vehicle trail which was newer, which would be, assumed to be a, a weaker trail going through the middle of that? Is that what you were referring to, sir? D. HARRIS: Yes. BOYER: The dog would follow the weaker trail if that's what it was scented on. D. HARRIS: So the dogs are trained and will follow the freshest trail? BOYER: The fresher trail, even if the quality or the quantity of that trail is less than an older trail. D. HARRIS: There was a term that was used called a choke point, and I want to go and explore that a little bit. When Miss Valentin worked Merlin across the entire front of the Covena Avenue address, is that to kind of cover this choke point theory? BOYER: Yes, sir. What we're looking for is the places where the missing person would had to have traveled or transited. Those give us a choke point, which is easier for us to search through. And so what she was trying to do is cover the whole front yard in case, I'm making an assumption on Ms. Valentin's thought process, but, P. HARRIS: Objection. Speculation. JUDGE: Sustained. D. HARRIS: Let me ask it a different way. You were given the hypothetical about taking the dog back to the same place to start the trails again, and you were given an example of a bowling alley. BOYER: Yes, sir. D. HARRIS: If you were to start at the back of the lane and start walking towards the pin, you were saying that there could be a number of different places that you were off by inches, or whatever. BOYER: Yes, sir. D. HARRIS: Is it a better practice to, under that example there, to take the dog and work across that particular lane instead of approaching the pins? BOYER: Yes, sir. That way the dog would find the freshest trail. D. HARRIS: And is that what Ms. Valentin did at Covena? BOYER: That's a good analogy for what she did across the front yard of the Covena residence, yes, sir. D. HARRIS: And with regards to Miss Anderson at the Berkeley Marina, had she, again, worked those choke points to that parking lot? BOYER: She worked the two vehicle choke points to that parking lot, yes, sir. D. HARRIS: You were asked if the, the question about whether, did you see her dog alert, talking about Ms. Anderson, Twist, at the warehouse, did you see the dog alert at the warehouse, and your answer was no, sir. Are you saying that you didn't see the dog alert? Or that you don't recall, I mean, can you explain that? BOYER: I didn't visually see the dog. Twist's alert is a bringsel alert, and I did not see the dog take the bringsel into its mouth at any time. And the bringsel alert is for the dog to grab the bringsel in its mouth and return it to the handler. I did not see that behavior in that dog inside the warehouse. D. HARRIS: Prior to being asked that particular question, you were describing what you did and you said that you were over by the office. Were you able to watch Twist and Miss Anderson the entire time that they were in the warehouse? BOYER: No, sir, I did not. I went back and worked my way through some very tall stacks of some type of product on, on pallets back to the rear bathroom to make sure there was no rat poison in the rear bathroom, or ant poison or anything like that, because it was an area that was hard to visualize. I then walked back towards the front office and stayed near the front office area. D. HARRIS: So are you, just so we're clear, you're saying when you were able to see, you did not see? BOYER: When I was able to see, I did not see, yes, sir. D. HARRIS: But it's not your testimony that the dog did or didn't at any point in time, P. HARRIS: Objection. This is leading. JUDGE: Well, I'll permit it. D. HARRIS: I'm not sure the question got completely out. BOYER: Please. D. HARRIS: It's not your testimony that the dog or didn't alert, it's just that you did not see it when you could see the dog? BOYER: That's correct, sir. D. HARRIS: You were asked about water dogs at the Berkeley Marina. We're talking about the 12‑28‑02 search of the Berkeley Marina. BOYER: Yes, sir. D. HARRIS: When you were putting this together, this particular search, the water dogs, the trailing dogs that came, had you been advised and did you advise the others there that the defendant had given a statement about being at the marina? BOYER: No, sir. D. HARRIS: And you were advised of that afterwards? BOYER: Yes, sir. D. HARRIS: And you were advised when you were going out putting these water dogs out there that he had taken a boat out into the Bay? BOYER: Afterwards, yes, sir. D. HARRIS: That he had specifically gone out to the Brooks Island area? BOYER: No, sir, not out to the Brooks Island area. I was told he went out into the Bay. D. HARRIS: From the Berkeley Marina? BOYER: From the Berkeley Marina, yes, sir. D. HARRIS: And were you advised that he returned to the Berkeley Marina? BOYER: No, sir, I was never told that. D. HARRIS: When you, going back to the search in Modesto, apologize for jumping around, but the search with Ms. Valentin, in Modesto at the warehouse. You've already, BOYER: Miss, okay. D. HARRIS: The defendant's warehouse. BOYER: Yes, sir. D. HARRIS: You were asked if the dog went in the wrong direction. So I want to explore that particular point at this point in time. Do you know anything about Detective Brocchini's experience with trailing dogs? BOYER: I know some after talking to him about it, yes, sir. D. HARRIS: And would you say that it's limited to none? BOYER: It's very, P. HARRIS: Objection. Calls for speculation. JUDGE: Overruled. You can answer. BOYER: Detective Brocchini did not seem to know a lot about how trailing dogs worked. D. HARRIS: When he asked you to see if the dog could find the warehouse, the blind test that's been referred to that was set up, was that a test in which the dog could ever find the warehouse? BOYER: I'm sorry, you'll have to ask that question a different way for me to answer, I think. JUDGE: That really calls for speculation, really. Dog could ever find the warehouse? We don't know that. D. HARRIS: Okay. Is, are dogs trained, these trailing dogs, are they designed, strike that. Are these dogs trained to find warehouses. JUDGE: Well, I don't think warehouses give off skin rafts. GERAGOS: Those are warehouse rats. JUDGE: Warehouse rats. I don't think they give off skin rafts. D. HARRIS: Give off, BOYER: No, sir, we don't have any warehouse dogs. D. HARRIS: I agree, but I want to make sure it's clear about that. JUDGE: I figured that out. D. HARRIS: So the test, if we were to talk about this in passing or fail, you were constantly asked whether that test was a failure. If the trail led away from the warehouse to the point that the dog started, and to a further point, if the dog starts in the middle and goes away from the warehouse but on the correct trail, would you call that a failure? BOYER: No, sir, I wouldn't. Not a failure of the dog. The dog was telling the truth as it knew it for the freshest trail. GERAGOS: Was telling the truth? JUDGE: Well, that's a term of art, I think. GERAGOS: This whole thing is a term of art. JUDGE: The dog is, BOYER: The dog, JUDGE: You're satisfied the dog is following a trail; you don't know if it was going north or south or east or west, but he was following a trail? BOYER:: Following the freshest trail, yes, sir. The failure was the design of the test, which didn't take into account that the trail going in might have been older than the exit trail overlapping it going out. D. HARRIS: I have no other questions. <afternoon recess>
Recross Examination P. HARRIS: Very briefly, which is always a dangerous statement to make. JUDGE: I know. P. HARRIS: Captain Boyer, I want to draw your attention, I'm presenting you with a copy of Bloodhound Training Log. I was going to ask, is this a training log that depicts that it belongs to Miss Valentin? BOYER: Her name is on the first several pages, but I don't necessarily see it on successive pages after that. It looks as if it's her training log, yes, sir. P. HARRIS: Well, let's talk about that for just a second. Take a look at, you say her name isn't on all the pages. But, for example, on April, 2000, page Bates number 25291, it has the title Training Log, April 2000. Does this appear to be a document that you have seen, the type of document you have seen Miss Valentin put together for her training logs? BOYER: Yes, sir. P. HARRIS: Okay. And as you look through the notations, you looked through it correct? BOYER: I briefly went through it now, yes, sir. P. HARRIS: It did appear to be the way Miss Valentin types out and arranges her training log, correct? BOYER: Yes, sir. P. HARRIS: Okay. Now, you testified that at some point you had a training session, a vehicle training session with Miss Valentin where, in fact, she put, a body was put, not necessarily her, but a body was put in a trunk and the dog was successful in tracking the body in the trunk. BOYER: The live person in the trunk, I recall a training session like that, yes, sir. P. HARRIS: Going to show you a training log included from this series of Bloodhound training logs. Bates number 25286, Training Log, January 2000. Would you look on that page and see anywhere where you see a vehicle trail search? BOYER: Of the six trails here, none of them say that they are vehicle trail. P. HARRIS: At the very end, on January 25th, Heather Farms, 24 hour trail, going through the park, it does say vehicle trail at the end, does it not? BOYER: Yes. But it doesn't say whether she ran that, or what that meant to me. P. HARRIS: There is no notation whatsoever in that vehicle trail that the body was in the trunk. BOYER: No, sir. There is no indication of that on this log. P. HARRIS: I want to draw your attention to November, 2000, Bates number 25298. Do you see a notation about a vehicle trail in that? BOYER: Yes, sir. Dated November 26 of 2000. P. HARRIS: Do you see any notation of a body being put in a trunk? BOYER: No, sir. P. HARRIS: Is that a vehicle trail? BOYER: Says vehicle trail, end, windows down, successful. P. HARRIS: Lastly, I want to draw your attention to Training Log, January 2002, Bates number 25316. Do you see any notation of a vehicle trail on that training log? BOYER: Yes, sir. On January 20th of 2002. P. HARRIS: Do you see any notation there of a body in a trunk? BOYER: No, sir. Says freeway trail laid the same day, stranger subject, two door, two windows were down. P. HARRIS: I have shown you three instances before December 2002 of trailing vehicle trails performed by Miss Valentin with the dog Merlin, correct? BOYER: Yes, sir. P. HARRIS: On those three occasions, do you see any notation whatsoever that there was a body in a trunk on any of them? BOYER: None of them said where the person was put in the vehicle, no, sir. P. HARRIS: In fact, if the body had been put in the trunk, that is certainly something she would have listed, wouldn't it? BOYER: I don't know that, sir. P. HARRIS: You don't know that? BOYER: I don't know that she would ‑‑ P. HARRIS: That wouldn't be an important factor to put on a training log, that the dog was actually successful in finding a body in a trunk? BOYER: It would be, sir. But I don't know that she would put it down there. P. HARRIS: Have you had any kind of supervision in the training Miss Valentin? BOYER: In the classroom on scent theory, but that's all, sir. P. HARRIS: You had nothing to do in training her as to how to write a report? BOYER: No, sir, I did not. P. HARRIS: Okay. So as far as Miss Valentin's ability to write a report or keep training logs, it's your belief that she could have just decided, that is important, this isn't important, I wouldn't include it? D. HARRIS: Speculation. JUDGE: Sustained. P. HARRIS: Do you know of any other vehicle trails that Miss Valentin did? BOYER: Would you include bicycle trails in those, sir? P. HARRIS: No, I would not. Vehicle trails being strictly an automobile. BOYER: No, sir, I can't recall any off top of my head. P. HARRIS: You seem to think it was pretty important, body was in the trunk, didn't you? BOYER: About a training, or what, sir? P. HARRIS: In terms of the dogs. When Mr. Harris asked you on direct about the fact that the dog was able to track the body in a trunk, you thought that was a pretty important point, didn't you? BOYER: As compared to a body inside the passenger compartment, sir? P. HARRIS: Yes. BOYER: It's different, in that, and more accurate to say it was in the trunk versus in the passenger compartment. P. HARRIS: Because if the windows were down, in fact, I believe when I asked you on cross examination about the windows being down, you said, yes, but the body was in the trunk one time, right? BOYER: Yes, sir. P. HARRIS: Okay. And, in fact, that didn't ever happen, did it? BOYER: I'm sorry? P. HARRIS: You were never on a vehicle training mission, vehicle training run with Miss Valentin when there was a body in the trunk, were you? BOYER: No, sir. That's in a trunk. I was on a training when Miss Valentin trailed a human being in the trunk of a car, P. HARRIS: And do you have, BOYER: , with the dog Merlin. P. HARRIS: Do you have any records of that whatsoever? BOYER: No, sir, I don't. P. HARRIS: And, by the way, Miss Valentin every training run she does, she is required to record it, correct? BOYER: She's required to keep a log of her training activities. P. HARRIS: Including ones she does with her supervisor, correct? BOYER: Yes, sir. P. HARRIS: You had talked about this bowling pin example, bowling lane example, I think? BOYER: Analogy, yes, sir. P. HARRIS: Analogy, yes. And you said that the better way to do it is to go across the lane, that way you catch the freshest scent possible? BOYER: Yes, sir. P. HARRIS: And I believe on redirect you said that you observed her doing exactly that in the front yard of Covena, correct. BOYER: I don't believe I said I observed her doing that. I said that that was her intent. And that's why she did it. P. HARRIS: You didn't observe her. How do you know that's how she did it? BOYER: Because that's what she told me in her debrief. P. HARRIS: She told you she did a bowling alley thing? BOYER: She told me she went across the front of the house. P. HARRIS: You didn't actually observe that, did you? BOYER: No, I did not. P. HARRIS: And, in fact, you were busy keeping the media at bay? BOYER: I was busy with my other details yes. P. HARRIS: You have no idea whether she actually did the bowling alley, approach or whether she just scented the dog and said go. BOYER: That's true, sir. P. HARRIS: Okay. When you were asked in redirect about the collection of evidence in the house, you mentioned that you kept them separate, each item, four items, correct? BOYER: Yes, sir. P. HARRIS: You kept them each separate? BOYER: Each was put into a separate Ziploc bag, yes, sir. P. HARRIS: And other than, since you were the one who collected them, other than the item being used at that particular time, you were responsible for the other three items; is that correct? BOYER: I'm sorry, ask that question again. P. HARRIS: You were responsible for the other three items that were not being used to scent the dog that day, correct? BOYER: Are you referring to chain of evidence, as in holding onto them until they were used, or, P. HARRIS: I'm referring to the fact that the hairbrush, the brown slipper, and the, BOYER: Pink slipper. P. HARRIS: Pink slipper were in your possession when you left that house that day, correct? BOYER: No, sir. P. HARRIS: Whose possession were they? BOYER: We gave them to the, I believe it was Detective Brocchini. P. HARRIS: You gave the items to Detective Brocchini, including brown slipper, correct? BOYER: Yes, sir. All, everything except for the glasses case that Miss Valentin used. P. HARRIS: Miss Valentin purposely kept away from the brown slipper because of the contamination problem, correct? They would not have wanted to have the brown slipper, because that would have possibly contaminated with the items from Laci Peterson, correct? BOYER: I don't know what you are referring to that she kept away from it. P. HARRIS: She did not have possession over, excuse me. She did not have possession, specifically, of the brown slipper, because that scented to Scott Peterson, correct? BOYER: She didn't have possession of, P. HARRIS: She didn't walk out of the house with it, did she? BOYER: I don't believe she walked out with that in her hands, no. P. HARRIS: Detective Brocchini walked out, didn't he, with it? BOYER: I believe we gave it to him while he was inside the house, yes, sir. P. HARRIS: You had mentioned a minute ago about that a dog will take a weaker, less quality trail if it's fresher; is that correct? BOYER: Yes, sir. That's what they are trained to do. P. HARRIS: So a dog, for example, would go, well, the example was used in the bus stop. A dog would go on something that might actually have a very weak scent, because it's fresher at that point? BOYER: Yes, sir. P. HARRIS: And the fresh scent itself, the concept of the fresh scent is that no matter how strong a scent pool is, it's nearby, or whatever, that what the dog is keyed into is finding where that scent has been the most recently? BOYER: Yes, sir. P. HARRIS: Okay. When you were on Kansas and Emerald and doing the search, the dog went away from the warehouse and, away from the warehouse, correct? BOYER: The first time, yes, sir. P. HARRIS: Yes. You were asked if that dog was perhaps going after the fresher scent at that point, as opposed to going to the warehouse where there might be a stronger, I believe was the question. BOYER: Detective Brocchini didn't ask me that, sir. P. HARRIS: That your understanding? Is that your understanding? BOYER: That it was going away from the warehouse because there was a fresher trail? P. HARRIS: Yes. BOYER: Yes, sir. P. HARRIS: And that fresher trail included going up to the storage yard, what you called the locked gate, and stopping there, correct? BOYER: It included going up to a chainlink fence, in the dark. From where I was, all I saw wasa a chainlink fence. I couldn't see behind it in the dark. When I was there, the dog went to that point, yes, sir. P. HARRIS: That's where the dog stopped? BOYER: That's where Miss Valentin stopped the dog, yes, sir. P. HARRIS: Because the dog was trying to get into the storage yard, correct? BOYER: I don't know that the dog was trying to get in the storage yard. P. HARRIS: Seemed to indicate what you liked to, often referred to as mild interest? BOYER: I wasn't watching the dog at that point, sir. I was dealing with traffic. P. HARRIS: Okay. When you went to the marina, you had no idea that Scott Peterson had been out there previously. BOYER: Are you referring to the 28th? P. HARRIS: I'm sorry, the 28th. BOYER: When I went to the marina on the 28th, I had no idea that Mr. Peterson had been there, no. P. HARRIS: There would have been no way to know that's what, in fact, you were scenting for. BOYER: I knew that the scent article we were using was Laci Peterson's scent article. P. HARRIS: Okay. At that point, you had already been to the warehouse, Scott Peterson's warehouse, actually two nights, two nights before, correct? BOYER: Yes, sir. P. HARRIS: And when you went to Scott Peterson's warehouse, you saw the dog in the boat, Scott Peterson's boat? BOYER: Yes, sir. P. HARRIS: You had a pretty good idea at that point that maybe Scott Peterson was a suspect, didn't you? BOYER: At some point, probably, yes, sir. P. HARRIS: So there wasn't anywhere, when you were at the marina, there wasn't any, you have no idea why we're here, because must just be looking for the missing lady, this has nothing to do with Scott Peterson? BOYER: We were there looking for remains of Laci Peterson, yes. P. HARRIS: You had a very good idea that Scott Peterson was a suspect at that time, didn't you? BOYER: Possibly, yes, sir. P. HARRIS: Your handlers had a very good idea he was a suspect, didn't they? BOYER: The water dog handlers didn't know much about the case, and I don't know what the detectives told them about the case when they briefed them. Mr. Seitz didn't know anything about the case. We really didn't discuss it, other than the fact that he had a scent article what his responsibility was, and probably had an opinion. P. HARRIS: With Mr. Seitz, and the request you made, as far as to have him check the area, the area you asked him to actually check was the launch ramp area; isn't that true? BOYER: In broad terms, the launch ramp area contains several areas, yes. P. HARRIS: So that was the area you asked him to search over. BOYER: Yes. P. HARRIS: That's also the area where he picked up no scent. BOYER: He indicated to me that he picked up no scent in the area near the bathroom along the tarmac area. P. HARRIS: The sunglass case? BOYER: Yes, sir. P. HARRIS: And the sunglasses, when they were removed from the purse, the sunglasses were in the sunglass case? BOYER: Yes, sir, they were. P. HARRIS: Okay. And the sunglass case, was it put in a different bag from the sunglasses? BOYER: No. The sunglasses were left in the sunglass case closed, and they were put, in total, inside the plastic bag. P. HARRIS: They were into one bag by itself, correct? BOYER: One Ziploc bag by itself. P. HARRIS: That's all.
2nd Redirect Examination D. HARRIS: Captain Boyer, have you seen the aerial photograph with the overlay that was prepared by Miss Anderson depicting the Berkeley Marina? BOYER: Yes, sir, I have. D. HARRIS: A little bit more than one question. On that particular map it shows, JUDGE: Not surprised. D. HARRIS: Shows an area that she lists as being no trail. Is that the area that Mr. Seitz described to you as the area that he found no hits either? BOYER: From his verbal description of the area, saying it's near the bathroom side, that's the same side that her aerial says that those are the same places. D. HARRIS: People have no other questions. |