K9 Case's, District Courts

1) A police dog was used to track the suspect from the residence.
2) Coleman is located by the dog and Coleman is arrested.

2) Neither the evidence to that effect, nor other evidence, placed Coleman at any time in the building or established that he had collaborated with a co-suspect in the crime itself.

CASE: UNITED STATES v JOYNER
492 F. 2d 650 (1974) District of Columbia Circuit

INITIAL SUSPECT VIOLATIONS:

1) Homicide in a residence.
2) Suspects flee on foot from residence.

CANINE DEPLOYMENT DECISION / FACTORS:

1) A police tracking dog was called to track and locate the suspects.
2) The dog tracked from the house and stopped on the sidewalk where the suspects got into a vehicle and fled.

COURT’S RULINGS, FINDINGS AND COMMENTS:

1) Testimony of police dog trainer who trained the police tracking dog who tracked the suspects from the house to a spot in the street where the getaway car had been parked was admissible.

2) There was other direct and circumstantial evidence, other than the dog track, in this case.

CASE: UNITED STATES V CARROLL
710 F. 2d 164 (1983) Fourth Circuit

INITIAL SUSPECT VIOLATIONS:

1) Attempted burglary of bank’s night deposit box.
2) Suspect Carroll flees the bank on foot.

CANINE DEPLOYMENT DECISION / FACTORS:

1) Police discovered freshly made footprints near the bank leading into the woods.
2) A police tracking dog was called to track the suspect.
3) The dog tracked Carroll from the bank into the woods.
4) The dog tracked past a point where Carroll discarded some evidence.
5) The dog then tracked back towards the edge of the woods.
6) Suspect Carroll exited the woods at that location and was taken into custody.
7) The dog was not allowed to finish the tract.

COURT’S RULINGS, FINDINGS AND COMMENTS:

1) The court found these factors established a proper foundation for the dog related evidence:

•The handler and dog successfully completed a tracking training course;
• The team practiced tracking three times a week;
• The dog had successfully tracked objects and people on hundreds of prior occasions.

2) The court stated that while the tracking evidence would have been more convincing if the handler had let the dog track the complete track, that failure does not make the dog tracking evidence inadmissible.

3) Carroll tried to subpoena the dog into court. The court denied doing this on the basis that the witness is not the dog, but rather the handler. There would be no purpose served by having the dog appear before the jury to perform a set of tests.

4) There was other direct and circumstantial evidence in this case.

CASE: EPPERLY V BOOKER
997 F. 2d 1 (1993) Fourth Circuit

INITIAL SUSPECT VIOLATIONS:

1) Suspect Epperly abducted and killed a female.
2) Neither the body or murder weapon were located.

CANINE DEPLOYMENT DECISION / FACTORS:

1) About ten days after the victim’s disappearance, a police tracking dog was used to search for evidence.
2) The officer scented the dog with a piece of Epperly’s clothing. The dog tracked from the victim’s car about two miles to Epperly’s front porch.
3) The dog also scented Epperly by picking out a towel in evidence. That towel was spread out with six similar towels.
4) And lastly, the dog also scented Epperly by tracking him from his car in the police parking lot into an office where Epperly was being questioned.

COURT’S RULINGS, FINDINGS AND COMMENTS:

1) Epperly was convicted of murder by circumstantial evidence.

2) Epperly tried to show that the track from the victim’s car to his house was contaminated. The court ruled that the track was not contaminated.

3) The dog tracking provided a merely cumulative link between Epperly and the victim’s death.

4) There was other circumstantial evidence that led to Epperly’s conviction.

This canine case was affirmed by the Fourth Circuit. The court’s decision was without a published opinion. Technically, this means the court’s findings, rulings and comments cannot be used or referred to in other cases.

Even with this decision without published opinion, the case may be referred to when certain matters of law are pointed out by the Fourth Circuit.

1) Suspect Griffin is in possession of an assault rifle.
2) Griffin goes into a nightclub and fires the rifle.
3) Griffin flees the club as a passenger in a vehicle.
4) Police respond and Griffin hangs out the passenger window pointing the rifle at a police officer.
5) A vehicle pursuit of the suspect ends when the vehicle strikes a tree.
6) Griffin flees the vehicle on foot.
7) A tracking police dog was brought to the scene.
8) The dog was scented off the passenger’s seat.
9) The dog tracked into the woods and located a rifle and then a single boot.
10) Griffin is located by another police officer. Griffin was missing a boot that matched the one the dog found.

1) The court convicted Griffin of possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. The conviction was based upon:

a. Griffin admitted he was the passenger of the vehicle;
b. A police officer saw the passenger shoot a rifle from the car;
c. After the car struck a tree, the driver was apprehended immediately;
d. The police dog, who was tracking the passenger’s scent, located a rifle that was the same type that Griffin had used at target practice the day before;
e. The dog also alerted to a boot that was the mate to the one that Griffin was wearing when a police officer found him in the woods outside the nightclub;
f. When Griffin was apprehended, he was wearing dark clothing, just as the passenger in the car was.

CASE: UNITED STATES v COFIELD
254 Fed.Appx.971 (U.S. Court of Appeals Fourth Circuit 2007)

Even with this decision without published opinion, the case may be referred to when certain matters of law are pointed out by the Fourth Circuit.

1. The case does not state the suspect’s or officer’s actions. The case only addresses the suspect, Cofield’s appeal of the case.

1. The court concluded that the only element in question is the knowing possession of the firearm:

2. The court concluded that the jurors could reasonably infer from this evidence that Cofield knowingly possessed the gun.

* Louisiana

* Mississippi

* Texas

CASE: UNITED STATES V ROZEN
600 F. 2d 494 (1979) Fifth Circuit

INITIAL SUSPECT VIOLATIONS:

1) A truck was under surveillance for possible narcotics trafficking.
2) The truck was found abandoned. The truck contained a sizeable amount of marijuana.

CANINE DEPLOYMENT DECISION / FACTORS:

1) A tracking bloodhound was called to track from the truck and locate the suspects.
2) After some three to four hours, and three to four miles from where the truck was found, the bloodhound found two suspects asleep under a tree. They had with them one flashlight and two pair of gloves. When they were brought out of the woods the shirt of one of them was torn and both were wet and bore some scratches.
3) The suspects, both brothers, were arrested.

COURT’S RULINGS, FINDINGS AND COMMENTS:

1) The dog handler was unable to testify, or give an opinion, whether the bloodhound was following the scent of one person found under the tree, or the other person, or both persons.

2) The only evidence even tending to show the suspect’s presence in the truck was the bloodhound’s pursuit of a scent from near the truck to the sleeping brothers. The only connecting factor is the bloodhound’s nose, and no one can do any more than guess whether the bloodhound was following the scent of one brother, the scent of the other brother, or the scent of both.

3) The evidence failed to sufficiently connect defendant to the marijuana and failed to show possession by him; defendant was simply discovered in the woods with his brother, three to four miles from a truck owned by his brother, some five to six hours after the truck had been discovered unmanned and loaded with marijuana.

CASE: UNITED STATES V WATKINS
741 F. 2d 692 (1984) Fifth Circuit

INITIAL SUSPECT VIOLATIONS:

1) A suspect commits an armed robbery of a post office.
2) The suspect flees on foot.

CANINE DEPLOYMENT DECISION / FACTORS:

1) Suspect Watkins is taken into custody by patrol.
2) Several hours later, tracking bloodhounds were brought to the post office.
3) The dogs were pre-scented on an article of clothing that suspect Watkins was wearing.
4) The dogs tracked to a shed where Watkins had been taken into custody by patrol.

COURT’S RULINGS, FINDINGS AND COMMENTS:

1) The following evidence overwhelmingly established Watkins’ guilt:

a) Both customers and one of the postal clerks, the latter having an abundance of opportunity to observe the robber, identified the man wearing a maroon jacket, carrying a paper bag and running across the shopping center parking lot, as the robber.
b) The postal supervisor, who chased that man across the mall and through an adjacent residential area, identified Watkins as the man wearing the maroon jacket, carrying the bag, fleeing the scene, who was later cornered and arrested.
c) A bag containing the cash and the marked money orders was found in a yard which the chase traversed.
d) Watkins’ fingerprint was lifted from the bag.
e) In a nearby yard, a maroon jacket was found in a barbecue pit.
f) A gun recently sold to Watkins was in a pocket of that jacket.
g) Watkins’ general description and build matched the unanimous description of the assailant given immediately after the incident by the two customers and the two postal clerks.
h) Watkins’ palm print was found on a change of address card located on the top of the counter where Watkins placed his left hand as he hurdled the counter.
i) The bloodhounds scented with Watkins’ clothing, traced the escape route from the front of the post office to the arrest site and then signaled both sides of the counter precisely at the cubicle where the robber stood.

Canine Tracking Decisions

CASE: UNITED STATES V GATES
680 F. 2d 1117 (1982) Sixth Circuit

INITIAL SUSPECT VIOLATIONS:

1) Armed bank robbery.
2) Suspects flee and are not captured for six months.

CANINE DEPLOYMENT DECISION / FACTORS:

1) On the day of the bank robbery, suspect Gates fled on foot from police officers.
2) Gates lost his sandal during the foot pursuit.
3) The sandal was recovered, put in a sealed package and booked for evidence.
4) A trained police dog was brought in eight months later to conduct a scent lineup.
5) The dog matched the sandal to Gates.

COURT’S RULINGS, FINDINGS AND COMMENTS:

1) The court properly admitted evidence from the tracking dog.

The dog was given the recovered sandal, which had been kept in a sealed package, to smell. The sandal had been in the vault for eight months. The dog then entered a room where a lineup had been composed. The dog promptly walked up to Gates and placed his head on Gates’ lap.

2) Before evidence of a tracking dog may be admitted, it must be shown that:

• The dog is of pure blood and of a stock characterized by acuteness of scent and power of discrimination;
• The dog has been accustomed and trained to pursue the human track;
• The dog has been found by experience in actual cases to be reliable in such tracking;
• The dog was placed on the trail at a spot where the participant(s) in the crime were known to have been;
• And that the dog was placed on the trail within the period of his efficiency.

3) In this case, even if the evidence supplied by the dog was inadmissible, there was more than enough evidence to convict Gates. (Other direct and circumstantial evidence.

CASE: RUMFELT V UNITED STATES
445 F. 2d 134 (1971) Seventh Circuit

INITIAL SUSPECT VIOLATIONS:

1) Attempted armed bank robbery.
2) Suspect flees from police by vehicle, then by foot into a wooded area.
3) Suspect Rumfelt is taken into custody by police, outside the woods.

CANINE DEPLOYMENT DECISION / FACTORS:

1) When Rumfelt is taken into custody, numerous items of evidentiary value are missing.
2) A police-tracking dog is brought in to recover the evidence.
3) The dog recovered the suspect’s clothing and suitcase hidden in the woods.

COURT’S RULINGS, FINDINGS AND COMMENTS:

1) Admission of a ski mask and brown jacket alleged to have been worn by the defendant in attempting to rob a bank was admissible. These items were connected to the defendant through a qualified police-tracking dog and by positive identification of a state trooper. (Other direct evidence.)

CASE: UNITED STATES v RENKEN
474 F. 3d 984 (U.S. Court of Appeals Seventh Circuit 2007)

1. Suspect, Renken, commits an armed robbery of a bank.
2. Renken flees initially on a bike, then on foot.
3. Officers find the bike and preserve it as a scent article.
4. A law enforcement bloodhound responded and was pre-scented off the bike seat.
5. The bloodhound tracked to an unoccupied vehicle, which was registered to Renken’s wife.
6. Officers then responded to Renken’s home and located Renken.
7. Renken, when confronted by the evidence, confessed to the crime.

1, Even if dog handler's testimony regarding bloodhound's actions in tracing bike, suspected to have been used in bank robbery, to vehicle owned by defendant's wife was not admissible due to handler's lack of special training, any error in admitting the evidence was harmless.

2. The connection between bike and vehicle was not essential to government's case:

CASE: WARREN V CITY OF LINCOLN, NEBRASKA
864 F. 2d 1436 (1989) Eighth Circuit

INITIAL SUSPECT VIOLATIONS:

1) An attempted burglary of a residence.
2) Suspect Warren flees on foot.

CANINE DEPLOYMENT DECISION / FACTORS:

1) A police-tracking dog responded to the scene within five minutes.
2) The dog tracked the suspect four and one-half blocks, to the east, to his parked car.
3) Suspect Warren was arrested as he tried to drive away.

COURT’S RULINGS, FINDINGS AND COMMENTS:

1) Police had probable cause to arrest Warren for attempted burglary, based on:

• Officers had a physical and clothing description of the suspect;
• A witness saw Warren running from the scene to the east;
• Within five minutes a police officer put his tracking dog on the scent which led to Warren’s car four and one-half blocks east of the crime scene;
• Warren attempted to drive away;
• Warren matched the physical and clothing description.

Even with this decision without published opinion, the case may be referred to when certain matters of law are pointed out the by Ninth Circuit.

1) Suspect Hornbeck commits an armed robbery.
2) Hornbeck flees into a lemon grove.
3) A police bloodhound tracks Hornbeck and locates him.

1) The court convicted Hornbeck of armed bank robbery. The conviction was based upon:

a. Testimony of victim bank tellers as to description of the robber;
b. Testimony of robber’s possession of a bag that matched description of bag recovered from defendant’s car;
c. Testimony of deputy sheriff who located defendant hiding in a lemon grove, by using a police bloodhound tracking dog to find him;
d. Recovery of a gun that matched the description of the gun used in the robbery;
e. Recovery of a bandana worn during the robbery from defendant’s car.

2) Canine tracking evidence that led to the defendant’s capture following the bank robbery was not required to be excluded, as more prejudicial than probative, or inherently unreliable under Daubert. The evidence was highly probative, as it made it more likely that defendant was the bank robber, the dog trainer had been using the tracking method successfully for eight years, and the bloodhound was used in 22 criminal investigations.