NCJ Number
136687
Journal
Criminal Law Bulletin Volume: 28 Issue: 3 Dated: (May-June 1992) Pages: 218-245
Date Published
1992
Length
28 pages
Annotation
In this article, the author challenges judicial deference toward the use of "dog scent lineups."
Abstract
In such lineups, a dog sniffs an object found at a crime scene and then sniffs a line of suspects (or objects touched by suspects). If the dog "alerts" to a particular suspect, that alert is admitted as substantive evidence that the suspect committed the crime. The author argues that a mythic belief in the infallibility of canine scenting, and the refusal of courts to examine the science underlying such scenting, result in convictions based more on superstition than on reason. The author reviews the scientific bases for dog scent lineups, concluding that there is inadequate scientific support for trusting canine behavior in scent lineups. That review of the scientific data also raises concerns about the value of other types of dog scenting evidence, such as tracking and narcotics detection. The author places this experimental data in the context of standard evidentiary doctrines governing scientific evidence, offering the practitioner guidelines for seeking to exclude scent lineups from criminal trials (and, correspondingly, for prosecutors to improve lineup fairness), or, failing in that endeavor, for more effectively cross-examining scent lineup "experts." (Author abstract)