Tracking Summary

The Federal Courts have not addressed tracking or identification police dogs as probable cause for arrest. In the cases in this update, all of the cases had other direct or circumstantial evidence to corroborate the canine tracking or identification.

Under Federal law, a canine track or 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 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 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 testimony:

The dog must be:
• Trained;
• Certified, on a yearly basis;
• Reliable, both in training and in deployments.

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

A recent tracking Federal case stated, “While we 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 576: Trailing by bloodhounds, generally – Proper foundation for evidence:

Bloodhound tracking evidence is admissible if:

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

The fact that the dog has not been exposed to an article carrying defendant’s scent before the tracking began does not render the tracking suspect, since it is sufficient that the dog was taken to the place where defendant was last observed.

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 performance, then the pure blood requirement for introduction of evidence of the dog’s conduct has been met.

Return to the Tracking Case Law Index

Return to the Home Page

Webmaster