In the middle of trial.

Have testimony of officer who found cocaine in wallet. K-9 had previously alerted but K-9 handler did not do the actual search. There is a valid search warrant. Is the testimony of the K-9 handler required to get the cocaine admitted?

And do you have caselaw?

Was the K-9 handler present during the search after the dog hit? It may be a matter of handler keeping the dog back while another officer searched.

Assuming the warrant was for the controlled substance (and not, e.g. a television set), the officer executing the warrant could search wherever the object could be located, also assuming that the place he searched was identified in the search warrant. SO, if the search warrant authorized a search of the person (defendant), then you should be fine without the K-9 handler testimony. Even if the search warrant was just for the place (residence?), you are probably still OK, because the officer had probable cause to believe that an offense was committed within his view by observing the "alert" of the K-9, even if your witness / discovering officer is not specifically trained, he is probably aware of what the K-9 does when it "alerts". The defense claim that you need the K-9 handler is a rabbit trail - don't go there. Stick with the warrant if possible, or with the PC of the witness based on the facts and circumstances.

Patr
Handler was present at first trial handler testified the dog's training, etc. Testified dog alerted during search (with search warrant). Another officer searched, and found drugs. At retrial officer who found drugs testified he found drugs after alert. Is handler required to testify for drugs to be admissible?

You do not need the handler. Similar to an officer being dispatched to a location, in which case you do not need the dispatcher. The officer had probable cause to search based on his observations (including the K-9 alert).

Larry, Patr

The dope came in, and I was able to save a bad case. Thanks