How reliable are dogs when they are used in criminal cases?
826641
The actual use of a dog is quite exact. The problem you run into are the training techniques and the fact that certain dogs (and handlers) should not pass the training certs they are required to. Many of the 'good dogs' are almost 100% right and even when they alert, and there is nothing there, there HAS been something there in the past. For example drug and 'people' dogs, those used to find illegal aliens on the border. Many times they will alert to an area and no one or no dope is found. If the dog is good, then you can practically guaruntee that there was something there in the past. Also take for example that bloodhounds are the only dog that can be used for a track and their nose is the only one you can make a warrantless entry. Yet the bloodhounds I worked with couldnt find a bisquit.\nRef testimony: if the dog has an excellent history, I believe that what they alert to should be used in court. Obviously not as the only thing, but is an extremely good indication that something was illegal, there, not right etc. If the dog has a record of mis-alerts then I believe that the 'testimony' of the dog should not be used. Once again, here lies the problem. Its difficult to prove when a dog is mediocre as his failures are rarely reported on, only his successes.
257041
No they shouldn't be. They are definitely a good investigative tool for law enforcement, but the results aren't totally reliable.
876840
Yes, in thirty eight states, the federal (civilian) law and the military.  If you are going to commit murder, better do it in the north-east or northern midwest.  Whatever you do, don't do it in the south.  In Florida, there are stricter rules for euthanizing your pet dog than there are for executing criminals.
534422
No possible way of knowing that since nobody (I am quite sure) has gone back and tried to determine whether the particular DNA evidence used in all those cases was "accurate" or "inaccurate."  In general, however, it is my belief that when performed properly and correctly used, DNA evidence is virtually infallible.
774408
No it is a myth dogs have real good hearing and can hear stuff that you do not so they hear it and bark at it.\n\n\nHowever, I am sure there are cases that a dog hears someone that was going to kill someone but was just barking because it heard him.
138538
In general, absolutely.  But like any evidence it needs to be authenticated, and it will be excluded if it is not relevant (or if it contains hearsay, or is more prejudicial than probative, etc.)  It may also be excluded in a criminal case if it is a police recording obtained wwithout a warrant.
1131585
I don't mean to upset your apple cart, but if another person's dog caused injuries that severe on the premises of a vet, you should not be handling the case yourself. You should be haveing an experienced personal injury atty at least review your case. Odds are, you will expend your one opportunity to get redress in court and come out with much less than you are entitled to. This sounds like one case where "going on the cheap" is a very bad idea.
211631
Probably not, but it depends on whether or not it was given approval from the ASPCA. They watch over movies where animals are concerned and won't give approval if any animal is harmed during the filming.
951448
There is no conclusive evidence, but if second-hand smoke can hurt people, why not dogs?
869686
The problem with the justic system is that people lie a lot. The accused lie. Alleged victims lie. Cops lie. Attorneys lie. As a criminal defense attorney, I've had cases where I knew the victim was lying (and, in at least one case, was found out to be right when months after the case the "victim" was charged with the crimes for which I was sure he was lying about), but the District Attorney didn't believe me. He believed the cops version. The offer was probation and the down side was life in prison. It's all about avoiding risk, so, of course, the client takes felony probation to avoid life in prison. It's all about who you believe. DNA isn't perfect, but the public believes it is. Fingerprint analysis is not perfect either. There are no national standard for fingerprint analysis. Most analysts are not certified. But the public believes fingerprint analysis is perfect. (Look at the Oregon attorney whose finger prints were found to be very similar to prints connected to the terrorist bombings in Madrid, but who had never been to Spain and had nothing to do with the bombing.) The public thinks that cops never lie but they do. A couple ex-cop friends of mine tell me that cops lie regularly on the stand and in their reports to make sure that the courts find their traffic stops legal and to identify suspects. But who wins the credibility game beween a defendant and a cop? The cops always win unless they really mess up. The system is just too subjective. It relies too much on determining who is lying and who is not and one just can't really ever know when someone is lying.\n\nI suspect that most accused are guilty. The trouble is that many are not and go to prison for nothing. How many, I don't know. I suspect it is a lot. And prison just makes it worse. Most prisoners learn nothing but how to con more folks and commit more crimes. They get out and no one will hire them, because they are felons. And our get tough attitude in society make more and more people into felons. Stress on the outside makes felons turn to drugs and crime. Prison and branding people felons makes the situation worse.\n\nThe trouble is that I don't know what the solution is. More drug programs like Delancy Street in San Francisco. It has a 90% success rate. I'd rather see the government spend its money on that than on prison. But the prison guard unions (particularly the one in California) has too much power and would not go for that. More prisons are better for them as they don't want to solve the problem but want to get more pay for members and more members (as one can see by the union's lawsuit to stop California from exporting prisoners to out of state prisons to help on overcrowding, which solves the overcrowding problem but makes it less likely there will be more prisons and, therefore, fewer union members). Someone needs to figure out what we are going to do with the millions of people behind bars in this country. I wish I was smart enough.
668478
Having Police in my family-the answer is yes. Most do specialize in one area. Some are good in many. Mine does people-but sometimes is used for drugs. You have to be able to communicate what you want to the dog. Its treat related (praise and food) and mine would do anything for extras-the dog knows the word find-and you use what you want it to find- its training.
818467
First of all, the dog is completly irrelevent in this scenario. Why people are commenting on the dog is beyond me. Who cares about the dog, the cops rights, brushing teeth, blah blah blah. The police officers suspecting a crime had been commited have the right to come into the home for more than one reason. Someone could have been hurt or killed and your brother destroying evidence. Second, they believed a crime was commited and your brother the perpetrator, they can come in uninvited. If your brother is drinking and driving and you suspect a alcohol problem, who cares about the minor details. \n\nYour brother will not and can not quit until he wants to. I have mixed feelings about court mandated Alcoholics Anonymous meetings. I am a sober member of Alcoholics Anonymous and also a police officer. The program saved my life, my career, my marriage and more than likely, the life of someone else. I was a chronic drinker and then always drove. Why I never hurt myself or others is beyond me. But, praise God!!!\n\nForget about the dog, the search warrant and all the other trivial stuff that ultimately wont matter when your brother is dead or in prison for killing someone. Encourage him to look at his drinking patterns and the problems alcohol causes in his life. Suggest rehab or Alcoholics Anonymous. Find another alcoholic in the program that may talk to him. \n\nDo something quick before it is too late and your writing questions about manslaughter laws or casket prices!!\n\nhttp://www.alcoholics-anonymous.org/en_find_meeting.cfm
102670
Depends on the severity of the crime.  If they are locked up for a white collar crime, I would say yes.  If it was a violent crime, I would say no.  Anything else is a maybe.
249197
Depends on area. in Texas, the air belongs to the state. The dog can sniff all around the car without permission. Then if he alerts, the cops have probable cause to search farther.
393067
How could there be, dogs are used as working animals on many farms and ranches
299032
Killing a dog or any other animal in self defense is not a crime.  If the dog is attacking you and you fear for your life there is nothing that a Court of Law can do to you.  It is not like you just picked a random dog to kill, if there was in fact an attack, have it documented either in police reports or in medical records and you will not get into trouble.
917300
depends on how well trained. My dog was a k-9 officer, so I grew up with a sniffer all my life, and she was good. I would say she could indicate pot from at least 60 feet away.