63 ALR 4th 143 DOG SCENT DISCRIMINATION
LINEUPS 1988
Basically 2 types
1. People lineup
2. Inanimate objects having suspect's scent.
Admissibility of this evidence usually follows the jurisdictions which
allow dog tracking evidence. It is admissible where the proper foundation
has been laid. Two foundational requirements have emerged since first
reported case in 1982.
- That the lineup was conducted in a
fair and objective manner.
- That the dog was properly trained and
found by experience to be reliable in this type of identification.
Things considered unfair and non-objective:
- Lineups where all others are police
officers.
- Lineup of knives only one of which
had blood on it.
- Lineup of shirts, only one of which
having blood on it or having been worn by a woman.
Ramos v. Florida, 496 Fo. 2d 121, 11
FLW 442, 63 ALR 4th 137.
Two dog scent discriminate lineups were admitted at trial; one was where
the dog got the scent from a cigarette pack of defendant's then ID'd
the female victim's shirt from four others in lineup. It was the only
knife with blood on it. On appeal, the court found that the scent-discrimination
lineups were conducted in a fair manner, based on the above-noted distinguishing
factors. The court specifically said, however, that the evidence must
meet the three criteria before it will be admissible.
State v. Roscoe, 145 Ariz. 212, 700 P.2d 1312, Cert. denied, 471
U.S. 1094.
Arizona held admissible evidence from scent-discrimination lineup, provided
that there is proper foundation showing that the breeding, training,
performance, and handling of the particular dog warrants an inference
that the results obtained from use of dog are reliable.
U.S. v. McNiece, (1983, EDNY) 558 F. Supp. 612, 12 Fed. Rules Evid.
Serv.
Dog was given defendant's sock for scent then picked out from a
variety of tools the boltcutters used in the crime. Court ruled that
there was sufficient scientific evidence in the scientific field to
support the notion that a well-trained dog can distinguish various odors.
The court added that juries must be properly instructed about this evidence.
Roberts v. State, 298 Md. 261, 469 A.2d 442 (1983).
In this jurisdiction, the scent-identification lineup was admissible,
even though the rapist was confronted in a lineup with four police officers.
Epperly v. Commonwealth, 224 Va. 214, 294 S,E. 2d 882 (1982).
Victim's body was never found. Court held admissible evidence of both
dog-tracking and scent lineup ID. Dog ID'd defendant's towel from five
other blue towels. Towel was stained with type O blood (same as victim's)
and six head hairs identical to victim's. The dog also selected the
defendant's car in the parking lot, having been scented on the blue
towel.
Chisolm v. State, 529 So. 2d 630 (Miss. 1988).
Court held that even though prosecution offered no background (thus
not laying a proper foundation) of the bloodhounds used to track, this
inadequacy "hardly rises to the dignity of reversible error."
The other physical evidence discovered and used in the search was sufficient
anyway.
Brafford v. State, 516 N.E. 2d 45 (Ind. 1987).
In Ind., "bloodhound evidence" is not sufficiently reliable
to be admitted into evidence when used for tracking.
Commonwealth v. Moore, 393 N.E. 2d 904 (Mass. 1979).
Police officer was allowed at trial to describe the track followed by
a trained dog. The evidence was properly admitted by trial court
judge after "extensive voir dire."
U. S. v. Gates, U.S. Court of Appeals, (6th Cir. 1982). Defendant was
convicted in the United States District Court for Southern District
of Ohio. The Court of Appeals held that: (1) trial court properly admitted
evidence that tracking dog entered room where lineup had been assembled
and promptly went to defendant and placed his head on defendant's lap.
and (2) evidence was sufficient to sustain conviction
Commonwealth v. LePage, 226 N.E. 2d 200 (Mass. 1967).
Evidence of trailing by trained dogs was properly admitted. "Decisions
in other states frequently have treated such evidence as admissible
at least as corroborative of other testimony." Wigmore on Ev. (3d
ed.) 177.
State v. Streeper, 747 P.2d 71 (Idaho 1987).
Evidence of bloodhound tracking is admissible if sufficient foundation
is established. Proper foundation should show:
- Dog possesses acute power of scent
determination
- Dog wastrained to track humans and
does so with high degree of accuracy
- Dog's handler is qualified and experienced
- Trail had not become stale or contaminated
- Dog was placed on trail at location
where the alleged criminal was known to have been.
|
