Tracking Summary

The Federal Courts have not addressed tracking or human scent identification police dogs as probable cause for arrest. All of the cases had other direct or circumstantial evidence to corroborate the canine tracking or human scent identification.

Under Federal law, a canine track or human scent identification of a suspect is a reasonable suspicion indicator, not probable cause. Other reasonable suspicion indicators will need to be developed in order to establish probable cause for an arrest.

Therefore, when a canine identifies a suspect on a track, you detain him based upon the reasonable suspicion provided by that identification. Now, you continue your investigation in order to rise to probable cause to support the arrest.

It should be noted that an alert or identification from a contraband detector dog, such as a narcotics detector dog, is probable cause, if the dog is trained, certified and reliable. That is not the case with either police human scent identification dogs or tracking police dogs.

When admitting a canine track or identification as a reasonable suspicion indicator, you should focus on three items in the police report and courtroom testimony:

The K-9 team (handler / dog) must be:

Trained, at a minimum of sixteen (16) hours per month;
Certified, on a yearly basis;
Reliable, both in training and in deployments.

By focusing on these three components, perhaps some day police tracking or human scent identification dogs may become probable cause. That is not the case today.

A recent tracking Federal case stated, “While we (the Court) recognize the importance of dogs in police investigations, we also adhere to our requirement of reliability as a safeguard against faulty canine identifications.”

The American Jurisprudence discusses the law of evidence in civil and criminal cases. They have addressed the admissibility of trailing by bloodhounds:

29 Am Jur 2d Evidence Section 587
“Proper foundation for evidence:

Bloodhound tracking evidence is admissible if:

The dog has an acute power of scent determination;
The dog was trained to track humans and could do so with a high degree of accuracy;
The handler is qualified and experienced;
The trail had not become stale or contaminated beyond the dog’s ability to follow the trail; and
The dog began on the trail at a location where the perpetrator was known to be have been.

Thus, dog-tracking or identification evidence is admissible upon a proper foundational showing that the breeding, training, performance, and handling of the particular dog warrants an inference that the results obtained from the use of that dog are reliable. The showing of reliability of dog-tracking evidence is met by testimony from the handler establishing that he or she is qualified to work with the dog and to interpret its responses and that the dog is a sufficiently trained and proven tracker of human scent.

Some jurisdictions require proof that the dog is of a breed known for its ability to pick up human scent. If a dog's owner or handler identifies the dog as a bloodhound and the dog justifies this description by his or her performance, then the pureblood requirement for introduction of evidence of the dog's conduct has been met.” -End-

Since the Bloodhound cases, dating back to the 1800’s, there is now case law supporting other law enforcement canine breeds, such as the German Shepherd and the Belgian Malinois.

There are many canine tracking cases where “footprints” have been used as corroboration evidence. This footprint evidence is used to build probable cause for an arrest of the person detained, on the track. This evidence is also addressed by the American Jurisprudence:

29 Am Jur 2d Evidence Section 583
“Footprints and tracks produced by shoes or boots:

The correspondence of footprints or tracks found near the scene of a crime to the shoes or tracks of the accused is admissible to identify the accused as the guilty actor.

In a number of cases, testimony showing the existence of footprints or tracks near the scene of the crime has been found admissible even without an attempt to compare them with the shoes or tracks of the accused. In other cases, however, it has been considered necessary that the accused be connected with the footprints or tracks to be identified in order for evidence of their correspondence to his or her shoes or tracks to be considered competent.

Some courts have allowed photographs of footprints to be introduced in evidence in connection with the testimony of a witness as to the correspondence of the footprints or tracks found near the scene of the crime to the shoes or tracks of the accused. Indeed, a number of courts have permitted plaster casts of footprints found near the scene of the crime to be introduced in evidence, the purpose usually being to show the correspondence of such footprints to the shoes of the accused.” -End-

It has been my personal experience in Court that canine tracking evidence is well received by the Judge and jury. As such, establishing these trailing evidence elements should be well established in the police report.

Return to the Tracking Case Law Index

Return to the Home Page

Webmaster