UNCONFIRMED CANINE ACCELERANT DETECTION - A RELIABILITY ISSUE IN COURT

Canines trained to alert to traces of flammable liquids at a fire scen e are useful to identify locations to collect samples for laboratory a nalysis. In some instances, no samples are collected or laboratory tes ting of samples collected following a canine scent alert fails to iden tify a residual flammable liquid and potential accelerant. In these, a n attempt may be made, through testimony of the dog's handler, to intr oduce at trial, information regarding the canine alert to indicate the presence of an ignitable liquid at the scene. Canine handlers contend that the dog has greater sensitivity to typical accelerants than labo ratory techniques but scientists counter that, while sensitive, the sp ecificity of canine detection is unknown. Unverified canine indication s have been used in a number of cases and challenges to several of the se have reached the appellate level. Examination of court decisions on admissibility of canine alerts shows that they have been as varied as the arguments pro and con.