Tracking and Scent
Discrimination Lineups
18 ALR3d 1221, Evidence--Trailing by
Dogs (1968 updated 1988)
Foundation: For admission of "bloodhound
evidence" it must first be shown that the dog was qualified
to track humans at the time of trailing (i.e. using history, pedigree,
training, experience, and traits of the dog). These qualifications
can be proved by testimony of owner,
trainer, or any other who has this knowledge.
Second--show circumstances surrounding
the trailing; counsel must show that dog was put on the track of accused.
(Was trail fresh, crossed by another person, good scenting day? Was
the dog ever confused or hesitant?)
In 31 states evidence of dog tracking is
admissible provided that a proper foundation is laid:
Alabama.................Holcombe v. State,
437 So. 2d 663 (1983).
Alaska.........Wilkie v. State, 715 P12d 1199 (Alaska App. 1986).
Arizona....................State v. Roscoe, 700 P.2d 1312 (1984).
Arkansas...................Rolen v. State, 89 S.W. 2d 614 (1936).
California............People v. Craig, 86 Ca. App. 3d 905 (1978).
Connecticut................State v. Wallace, 435 A. 2d 20 (1980).
Florida...................Tomlinson v. State, 176 So. 543 (1973).
Georgia...................Smith v. State, 177 S.E. 2d 485 (1970).
Idaho...............State v. Streeper, 747 P. 2d 71 (Idaho 1987).
Kansas.....................State v. Netherton, 3 D.2d 495 (1931).
Kentucky.......Daugherty v. Commonwealth, 168 S.W. 2d 564 (1943).
Louisiana...................State v. Green, 26 So. 2d 487 (1946).
Massachusetts.....Commonwealth v. LePage, 226 N.E. 2d 200 (1967).
Maryland...................Roberts v. State, 469 A.2d 442 (1983).
Michigan.............People v. Riemersma, 306 N.W. 2d 340 (1981). Mississippi..................Hinton
v. State, 166 So. 762 (1936).
Missouri.............State v. Fields, 434 S.W. 2d 507 (M0. 1968).
North Carolina..........State v. Rowland, 139 S.W. 2d 661 (1965).
North Dakota..............State v. Iverson, 187 N.W. 2d 1 (1971).
Ohio.....................State v. Dickerson, 82 N.EW. 969 (1907).
Oklahoma......................Buck v. State, 138 P.2d 115 (1943).
Oregon....................State v. Harris, 547 P. 2d 1394 (1976).
Pennsylvania...Commonwealth v. Hoffman, 52 Pa. Super. 272 (1913).
South Carolina.................State v. Brown, 88 S.E. 21 (1916).
Tennessee...................Copley v. State, 281 S.W. 460 (1926).
Texas.......................Parker v. State, 80 S.W. 1008 (1904).
Vermont..................State v. Bourassa, 399 A. 2d 507 (1979).
Virginia.........Epperly v. Commonwealth, 294 S.E. 2d 882 (1982).
Washington................State v. Socolof, 623 P. 2d 733 (1981).
West Virginia.............State v. McKinney, 106 S.E. 894 (1921).
In 5 states it appears it is inadmissible.
Illinois.....................People v.
Wolf, 165 N.E. 619 (1929).
Indiana....................Ruse v. State, 115 N.E. 778 (1917); and State
v. Brafford, (1987).
Montana.....................State v. Storm,
238 P.2d 1161 (1952).
But, use of dog tracking that locates tangible evidence other than the
defendant himself is admissible with proper foundation.
Nebraska......................Brott v.
State, 97 N.W. 593 (1903).
Iowa..........................State v. Grba, 194 N.W. 250 (1923).
However, in a 1928 case, State V. Wagner,
222 NW 407, The court had no problem with taking judicial notice of
the habits and instincts of CHICKENS; in a 1939 case, State v. McAteer,
228 NW 72, evidence that a cow will go back to its stall by habit was
admitted. In 2 states the question has been raised but not officially
decided:
Minnesota...............Crosby v. Moriarty,
181 N.W. 199 (1921).
New York..............People v. Whitlock, 171 N.Y.S. 109 (1918).
The question has not been addressed in
the remaining 13:
New Hampshire, New Mexico, Nevada, Wyoming,
South Dakota, Colora-
do, Utah, Rhode Island, Maine, Delaware, Hawaii, Wisconsin, New
Jersey.
|
