Evidence by Police Tracker Dogs
| Published date | 01 January 1967 |
| DOI | 10.1177/002201836703100111 |
| Date | 01 January 1967 |
| Subject Matter | Article |
Evidence
by
Police
Tracker
Dogs
IN Wigmore on Evidence (Vol. I, para. 177) it is stated
that
"if
the instinct or habit of animals can
in
a given case be
supposed to be sensitive to the dealings of men with them, it
would seem that the conduct of an animal may be trusted
evidentially as indicating the human act which would naturally
have caused
the
animal's conduct." One example of this
subject is that
"the
behaviour of the animal may be
the
result
of an impression made on some peculiarly strong sense by a
casual outward event or human act, incapable of being per-
ceived by the human senses".
This
evidence is admissible by
most courts: indeed Wigmore cites dozens of cases in which in
the
American jurisdiction it has been admitted.1
This
admiss-
ibility is, however, subject to certain provisos
in
the
case of
tracking dogs.
In
the first place, the animal must be shown to
have been trained and to be able to track accurately so
"that
reliance may reasonably be placed on the accuracy of the trail-
ing":
and,
in
the second place,
"the
person testifying must be
reliable."
In
some of these jurisdictions, it is expressly stated
that
corroboration of the evidence is required: indeed, it is
usually stated
that
evidence of tracking is insufficient in itself.
In
some jurisdictions, moreover,
the
evidence has been roundly
declared to be inadmissible.
In
The
People
v. Pfanschmidt
(1914, 262 Ill. 41 I), it is stated
that
"the
trailing of either a
man or an animal by a bloodhound should never be admitted
in
any case"; and the reason for this was stated by Sullivan
C.].
in
Brott v. The State (70 Nebr. 395) to be
"that
a blood-
hound is frequently wrong is a fact well tested by experience".
Thus,
"it
is unsafe evidence, and both reason and instinct
condemn
it."
In
Canada, the Courts appear to have changed their
mind.
In
R. v. White (1926 3D.L.R.
I;
B.C.) Macdonald
1
And
in S. Carolina s. 945 of the Criminal Code authorises
the
use of dogs for
tracking law-breakers.
73
To continue reading
Request your trial