Kebolehterimaan Keterangan Anjing Pengesan di Amerika Syarikat

Kevin Brendan Kung, Ramalinggam Rajamanickam, Muhammad Helmi Md. Said

Abstract


With technology advancing at lightning speed, new forensic investigatory techniques have been developed. However, some convictions in criminal cases still depend on old and traditional techniques like using tracking dogs or K-9. It is common knowledge, dogs are intelligent animals and have keen sense of smell. In the early days, courts in America were hesitant to accept evidence from tracking dogs and have expressed many concerns in particular of dogs drawing inferences. However, tracking dog evidence has been accepted by courts in America since a decade ago. As dogs cannot go to the witness box to give evidence in court, their handlers are allowed to give evidence on behalf of their dogs in relation to the tracking and tracing. Courts in other jurisdictions have regarded dog handlers as an expert witness. This causes their opinions to be accepted as expert evidence. This writing discusses on the usage of tracking dogs by law enforcement agencies. Besides that, this articles also discusses the admissibility of tracking dog evidence by the courts in America. The methodology employed in this paper are descriptive, doctrinal, analytic and prescriptive in which case law, journal and books pertaining tracking dog evidence are analysed. 

ABSTRAK

Dengan teknologi yang semakin maju sepantas kilat, teknik penyiasatan forensik yang baharu telah dibangunkan. Walau bagaimanapun, beberapa sabitan dalam kes jenayah masih bergantung pada teknik lama dan tradisional, seperti penggunaan anjing pengesan atau K-9. Umum mengetahui bahawa, anjing ialah haiwan yang pintar dan mempunyai deria bau yang tajam. Pada awalnya, mahkamah di Amerika Syarikat teragak-agak untuk menerima keterangan anjing pengesan dan telah meluahkan kebimbangan, khususnya apabila anjing membuat inferens. Namun, keterangan anjing pengesan telah diterima oleh mahkamah di Amerika Syarikat sejak satu abad yang lalu. Memandangkan anjing tidak boleh masuk ke kandang saksi untuk memberikan keterangan di mahkamah, pengendali anjing dibenarkan untuk memberikan keterangan bagi anjingnya berhubungan dengan penjejakan dan pengesanan. Mahkamah di bidang kuasa lain telah menganggap pengendali anjing sebagai saksi pakar. Hal ini menyebabkan pendapat mereka boleh diterima sebagai keterangan pakar. Artikel ini mengupas isu berkaitan dengan penggunaan anjing pengesan oleh agensi penguatkuasaan undang-undang di Amerika Syarikat. Selain itu, artikel ini juga membincangkan kebolehterimaan keterangan anjing pengesan oleh mahkamah di Amerika Syarikat. Metodologi yang digunakan dalam artikel ini adalah deskriptif, doktrinal, analitis dan preskriptif kerana keputusan kes, jurnal dan buku berkaitan dengan keterangan anjing pengesan dianalisis.

Kata kunci: Keterangan anjing pengesan; Amerika Syarikat; K-9; penyiasatan; kebolehterimaan 


Keywords


Tracking dog evidence; United States; K-9; investigation; admissibility

Full Text:

PDF

References


Allen v Kentucky 26 Ky.L.Rptr. 807, 82 S. W. 589, (Ct. App 1904).

Blair v Kentucky [1916] 171 Ky.319, 188 S.W.390

Brooks v Colorado [1999] 975 P.2d 1105.

Brummett v Kentucky [1936] 263 Ky. 460, 92 S.W.d 787 (Ct.App. 936).

Bullock v Kentucky [1933] 249 ky.1, 60 S.W.2d 108 Ct.App.

California v Gonzales [1990] 218 Cal.App.3d 403, 267 Cal.Rptr.138.

California v Gutierrez, 2004 WL 723161 (Ct.App. 2004).

California v Mitchell [2003] 110 Cal.App.4th 772, 2 Cal.Rptr.3d 49 Ct.App.

Canine Adoption Programme, Transportation Security Administration, 11 Mei 2022.

Carolina v Hawley [1981] 54 N.C.App. 293, 283 S.E.2d 387 Ct.App.

Castaldo, N, F. (2017). Sniffer Dogs: How Dogs (and Their Noses) Save the World. Clarion Books.

Connecticut v St.John [2007] 282 Conn.260, 919 A.2d 452.

Connecticut v Wilson [1980] 180 Conn. 481, 429 A.2d 931.

Davis v Florida, 46 Fla. 137, 35 So. 76 (1903).

Dudek, D., & Srebnik, G. (2000). The effect of imposed contamination with 10% distilled vinegar on scent identification by dogs. Problemy Kriminalistyki, 227, 38-39.

Edwards v District of Columbia, 390 So. 2d 1239 (D.C. App 1980).

Ensminger, J. J. (2012). Police and military dogs: Criminal detection, forensic evidence and judicial admissibility. CRC Press.

Epperly v Booker, 997 F.2d 1 (4th Cir. 1993).

Epperly v Virginia 224 Va. 214, 294 S. E. 2d 882 (1982).

Evans, R. I., Herbold, J. R., Bradshaw, B. S., & Moore, G. E. (2007). Causes for discharge of military working dogs from services: 268 cases. Journal of American Veterinary Medical Association, 231(8), 1215-1220. https://doi.org/10.2460/javma.231.8.1215

Ferry B., Ensminger J.J., Schoon A., Bobrovskij Z., Cant D., Gawkowski M., Hormila I., Kos P., Less F., Rodionova E., Sulimov K.T., Woidtke L., Jezierski T. (2019) Scent lineups compared across eleven countries: looking for the future of a controversial forensic technique. Forensic Sci. Int. 302.

Fisher v. Mississippi, 150 Miss. 206, 116 So. 746 (Sup. Ct. 1928).

G Schoon, G. A. A. (2003). Internal Report on International Workshop for Id-Dog Handlersin Stukenbrock, September - October 2003.

Gerritsen, R., & Haak, R. (2001). K9 professional tracking: a complete manual for theory and training. Detselig Enterprises.

Gerritsen, R., & Haak, R. (2010). K9 fraud: Fradulent handling of police search dogs. Brush Education.

Goss K.-U. (2021). Mantrailing as evidence in court?. Forensic Sci. Int.: Rep. 3.

Handy, W. F., Harrington, M., & Pittman, D. J. (1961). The K-9 Corps: The use of dogs in Police work. The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 52(3), 328.

Hargrove v Alabama [1906] 147 Ala. 97, 41 So. 972 Ala.Sup.Ct.

Harris v Mississippi, 143 Miss. 102, 108 So. 446, 447 (1926).

Harris v State of Florida 71 So.3d 756 (2011).

Harvey, L. M., & Harvey, J. S. (2003). Reliability of bloodhounds in criminal investigations. Journal of Forensic Science, 48(4), 811-816.

Heinze A. & Fyfe S. (2020) The role of the prosecutor. Cambridge University Press, Core Concepts in Criminal Law and Criminal Justice.

Hinton v Mississippi, 175 Miss. 308, 166 So. 762 (1936).

Hodge v Alabama [1893] 98 Ala.10, 13 So. 385 Ala.Sup.Ct.

Holub v. Arkansas, 116 Ark. 227, 172 S.W. 878 (1915).

Idaho v Streeper [1987] 113 Idaho 662, 747 P.2d 71.

Illinois v Pfanschmidt, 262 I111. 411, 104 N.E. 804 (1914).

Iowa v Grba [1923] 196 Iowa 241 194 N.W. 250 Sup.Ct.

Jesse, G. R. (1886). Researches into history of the British Dog, from Ancient Laws, Charters, and historical records. Salzwasser Verlag.

Johnson v Georgia, 165 Ga. App.146, 299 S.E.2d 740 (Ct. App. 1983).

Kansas v Adams, 85 Kan. 435, 116 P. 608 (1911).

Kansas v Fixley [1925] 118 kan 1. 233 P.796.

Kemp, T. J., Bachus, K. N., Nairn. J. A., & Carrier, D. R. (2005). Functional trade offs in the limb bones of dogs selected for running versus fighting. Journal of Experimental Biology, 208,3475-3482.

https://doi.org/10.1242/jeb.01814

Leif Woidtke, Frank Crispino, Barbara Ferry, Udo Gasnolber, Nina Marie Hohfeld, & Tom Osterkamp. (2023). The use of man trailing dogs in police and judicial context, future directions, limits and possibilities. Forensic Science International: Synergy, 7.

Lit, L., Oberbauer, A., Sutton, J.E., & Dror, I.E. (2019). Perceived infallibility of detection dog evidence: implications for juror decision-making. Criminal Justice Studies, 32(3), 189-206.

Michigan v Jackson [2008] WL 2037805 Ct.App.

Michigan v Laidlaw [1988] 169 Mich.App.84, 96, 425 N.W.2d 738, 743 Ct.App.

Michigan v McPherson [1978] 85 Mich.App.341, 271 N.W.2d 228 Ct.App.

Missouri v Freyer, 330 Mo. 62, 48 S.W.2d 894 (Sup.Ct.Div.2 1932).

Missouri v Shawley [ 1933] 334 Mo.352, 67 S.W.2d 74.

Montana v Storm [1951] 125 Mont.346, 238 P.2d 1161 Sup.Ct.

New Hampshire v Maya [1985] 126 N.H 590, 493 A.2d 1139.

New Hamsphire v Taylor [1978] 118 N.H. 855, 395 A.2d 505.

North Carolina v Robinson 181 N.C. 516, 106 S.E. 155 (1921).

Ohio v Hall [1986] 4 Ohio Dec.147, 1896 WL 651 Ct.Com.Pleas

Ohio v Nguyen [2004] 157 Ohio App.3d 482, 811 N.E.2d 1180.

Oregon v Harris, 25 Or. App. 71, 547 P.2d 1394 (Ct. App. 1976).

Orr v Alabama [1938] 236 Ala 462, 183 So. 445 Ala.Sup.Ct.

Parker v. Texas, 46 Tex.Crim. 461, 80 S.W. 1008, 100 Am.St.Rep. 1021 (Ct. Crim. App. 1904).

Pate v Texas [2010] WL 3341853 Tex.App.

Pennsylvania v Hoffman [1912] 52 Pa.Super.272, 1912 Wl 4825.

People v Wade [2008] Ala. Ct.

People v Willis [2004] 115 Cal App 4th 379.

Perkins v Texas [2009] WL 2837356 Ct.App.

Powell v Texas [2011] WL 1579734 Ct.App.

Rebmann, A., David, E. & Sorg, M. H. (2000). Cadaver dog handbook: forensic training and tactics for the recovery of human remains. CRC Press.

Reyes v Texas [1997] WL 196356 Ct.App.

Roberts, S. C., Gosling, L. M., Spector, T. D., Miller, P., Penn, D. J., & Petrie, M. (2005). Body odor similarity in noncohabiting twins, chemicals senses. Applied Science, 30(8), 651-656. https://doi.org/10.1093/chemse/bji058

Rogowski, M. (2001). Influence of evidence collection time on the result of osmological expertise. Problemy Kryminalistyki, 234, 49-52.

Rooney, N. J., Gaines, S. A., Bradshaw, J. W. S., Penman, S. (2007). Validation of a method for assessing the ability of trainee specialist search dogs. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 103(1-2), 90-104. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applanim.2006.03.016

Schoon, G. A. A., & Haak, R. (2002). K-9 suspect discrimination: Training and practising scent identification line-ups. Deselig Enterprise.

Starkes v U.S. [1981] 427 A.2d 437 D.C.App.

State v Buller [1994] 517 N.W.2d 711.

State v Gates 680 F 2d 1117 6th Cir 1982.

State v White [2009] 382 S.C. 265.

Stejskal, S. M. (2022) Death, Decomposition and Detector Dogs: From Science to Scene. CRC Press.

Stockham, R. A., Slavin, D. L., & Kift, K. (2004). Survivability of human scent. Forensic Science Communications, 6(3), 17-26.

Svatberg, K. (2002). Shyness-boldness predicts performance in working dogs. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 79(2), 57-174. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0168-1591(02)00120-X

Syrotuck, W. G. (1972). Scent and the scenting dog. Barkleigh Productions.

U.S. v Caroll, 710 F.2d 164 (4th Cir. 1983).

U.S v Ebersole [2005] 411 F.3d 517 4th Cir.

U.S. v McNiece [1983] 558 F.Supp.612, 12 Fed.R.Evid.Serv.1870.

U.S. v Rozen, 600 F.2d 494 (5th Cir. 1979).

Vermont v Bourassa [1979] 137 Vt.62, 399 A,2d 507 Sup.Ct.

Virginia v Patterson, 392 Pa. Super. 331, 572 A.2d 1258 (Super Ct. 1990).

Washington v Ellis [1987] 48 Wash.App. 333, 738 P.2d 1085 Ct.App.

Washington v Nicholas [1983] 34 Wash.App. 775, 663 P.2d 1356.

William, T. (2017, Oktober 25). Increase in canine explosives detection training seen needed amid rise in passenger travel. Homeland Preparedness News. https://homelandprepnews.com/stories/24816-increase-canine-explosives-detection-training-seen-needed-amid-rise-passenger-travel/

Wilsson, E., & Sundgren, P. E. (1997). The use of a behaviour test for the selection of dogs service and breeding, method of testing and evaluating test results in adult dog, demands on different kinds of service dogs, sex and breed differences. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 53(4), 279-295. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0168-1591(96)01174-4


Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.