Maybe, finally, proponents of using unconfirmed canine alerts as evidence in trials will understand that this is not reliable evidence. Even if they sneak this unreliable evidence past an unsuspecting judge and achieve a wrongful conviction, it is likely to be overturned.

The case of Andrews v. Brethren Mutual, decided in the Middle District of Pennsylvania last October, contains numerous links to other cases where unconfirmed alerts were either excluded or used to overturn wrongful convictions.

The battle against this unreliable evidence should have been over in 1996, when NFPA 921 said that unconfirmed alerts were “not validated.” Or maybe in 2012, when CADA said,

“our position is that no Prosecutor, Attorney or ADC Handler should ever testify or encourage testimony that an ignitable liquid is present without confirmation through laboratory analysis.”

The 2021 edition of NFPA 921 strengthened its language when it said,

Any canine alert not confirmed by laboratory analysis should not be considered validated and, accordingly, should not be offered as direct or circumstantial evidence of the presence of an ignitible liquid in a criminal or civil trial.

But even today, there are some people who want to ignore this guidance and admit the impressions of dog handlers in the absence of laboratory confirmation.

Here is a link to the Andrews case:

[casetext.com]

John J. Lentini, CFI
Scientific Fire Analysis
Islamorada, FL
www.firescientist.com
scientific.fire@yahoo.com