Another Problem with Canine Identifications

On Monday of this week I blogged about the case of a Riverside, California man who spent two years in jail on arson charges that were largely based upon scent evidence obtained using a device known as a scent transfer unit. In theory, the scent transfer unit collects a perpetrators scent from evidence at a scene, deposits it on a gauze pad, which can then be given to a canine to facilitate the tracking of the suspect. The validity of this practice has come under a great deal of scrutiny as seeming innocent people are being charged and in some cases convicted of crimes.

On the heels of these tragic cases, comes a further unsettling report on the use of canines to perform “dog scent line-ups”. Reported in the New York Times, it appears that scent line-ups are being called into question following a string of cases where innocent people have been arrested and jailed based in large part on canine identification.

Asked to comment on a video of one scent line-up, Robert Coote, who commands a British police canine unit, said “If it was not for the fact that this is a serious matter, I could have been watching a comedy.”

Having had the opportunity to discuss these cases with a group of firefighters and non-firefighters at a conference today, most are astounded that in this day and age unreliable practices such as these are used by law enforcement. This sentiment may explain why juries are all too willing to accept these “quack-theories” in court to convict an innocent person: no law enforcement organization would dare use such evidence if it were not reliable. Mind you this issue is not about good intentions, or honest beliefs on the part of the proponents of these tests. That is unquestioned. The problem comes in the lack of scientific reliability to support their use.