How reliable are dogs when they are used in criminal cases?

Question

I would assume there is some sort of standard....ie a scientific tests of some sort to establish credibilty and reliablity....of both the dog, the handler and the trainer....but is that really an exact science?...wouldn't that allow for a great margin of error?

I have seen dogs go both ways.....do poorly on a case....and ones that have "found" the intended target..or whatever the situation may be. I am not talking about drug sniffing dogs.

Two cases I am thinking of are the Jessica Lunsford(sp) case in FLA...where the dog didnt locate her body in the shallow grave.....and the Scott Peterson case...where the dog handler was allowed to testify( he(the dog..lol) sniffed at the end of the dock...denoting that she was in the water).


Should dogs be allowed to be used(sniffing) in criminal cases? Not as a tool or method for law enforcement but should they be able to "testify" in court....and of course I don't mean the dog but the handler re: testimony?

Sorry...but not ALL dogs find the "evidence"...which is why I am questioning it.Too many variables..IMO.

And yes... there can be dueling experts in a case...such as the medical examiner...but the evidence they are arguing about is the same....it's just interpreted differently.To use the SP case again...they both agreed about the thing around the babies neck....they argued about how it got there.

But in the case of using a dog....which they were allowed to use...how reliable is that..you just can't have a "expert" testify...there are standards within the scientific community that must be met..and thats my question. Not ALL dogs are reliable..if that were the case..then ALL cases dogs that have been used would be successful..dogs would find the evidence...but thats NOT the case(ex.in the Jessica Lunsford case..the dog didn't find her body..regardless of how many times they searched that area.

Answer 1

The actual use of a dog is quite exact. The problem you run into are the training techniques and the fact that certain dogs (and handlers) should not pass the training certs they are required to. Many of the 'good dogs' are almost 100% right and even when they alert, and there is nothing there, there HAS been something there in the past. For example drug and 'people' dogs, those used to find illegal aliens on the border. Many times they will alert to an area and no one or no dope is found. If the dog is good, then you can practically guaruntee that there was something there in the past. Also take for example that bloodhounds are the only dog that can be used for a track and their nose is the only one you can make a warrantless entry. Yet the bloodhounds I worked with couldnt find a bisquit.
Ref testimony: if the dog has an excellent history, I believe that what they alert to should be used in court. Obviously not as the only thing, but is an extremely good indication that something was illegal, there, not right etc. If the dog has a record of mis-alerts then I believe that the 'testimony' of the dog should not be used. Once again, here lies the problem. Its difficult to prove when a dog is mediocre as his failures are rarely reported on, only his successes.

Answer 2

Dogs find evidence, period. (what I mean is they either find it or they don't. The evidence they don't find is not relvant.)

There are cases where the dog does not find real evidence but becomes circumstantial evidence because they lead people to believe something. But circumstantial evidence is admissible, it is up to the finder of facts (the jury) to either believe it or not believe it.

While there is much evidence that can not be introduce because it does not meet scienctific standards those are more along the lines of things that are impossible based on science facts (these are usually decided by a judge). Things that are based on science theory but not disproven by facts are still admissible and it is up to the finder of facts side to weigh the reliablity of the evidence.

You can not look at dogs and say "oh they get it wrong sometimes they should not be used." Police get it wrong sometimes too, and they are the main evidence finding tool we have. But that is the whole point of a trial, to weight the reliablity of the police's work. Was a dog who improperly trained the only evidence the police used in determining who done it. Or was it a well trained dog, plus DNA, plus an eyewitness.

All a dog handler can do is say what they "think" the behavior of the dog suggest. Again just like all a medical examiner can do is say what they "think" the crime scene suggest. It is still up to the jury to decide if they believe that version and they often do not.

Answer 3

Criminal Records Search Database : http://www.SearchVerifyInfos.com/Info

Answer 4

I have been in front of a couple judges that wreaked of cheap whiskey.A good job for these animals would be to weed out intoxicated judicial personnel.