Only 40% of German Shepherd Police Dogs in New Zealand Serve Until Scheduled Retirement

A survey of handlers of German shepherd police dogs in New Zealand found that although dogs were scheduled to retire at eight years of age, only 40% actually remained in service that long.  Of 182 dogs on which information was gathered, 48 were still in service, while 94 were in retirement, 24 had been euthanized, 11 had died, and five had been killed.  Of the 94 in retirement, 61 had retired because of inability to cope with the physical demands of the work.  Of these 61, 42 had degenerative musculoskeletal and lumbo-sacral diseases.  Thus, German shepherd dogs were often taken out of service because of skeletal conditions, with the average age at which dogs discontinued service being 6.6 years, nearly a year and a half before they had been scheduled to retire.   

               

The research, conducted by veterinarians at the Massey University in New Zealand as well as two members of the New Zealand Police Dog Section in Trentham, New Zealand (Worth et al., citation below), argued that their research meant that greater efforts should be made to find ways to lower the incidence of bone diseases in police working dogs.  They did not discuss the possibility that the research might also indicate that, at least for some functions, German shepherds may not be the ideal breed from which to develop police dogs.   

New Zealand Police Dog Section

The New Zealand Police Dog Section uses German shepherds for tracking, patrol, and suspect apprehension.  According to an official of the Section, approximately NZ$25,000 (about US$21,000) is invested in breeding and training a dog for police work. New Zealand began using police dogs in 1956 after recruiting Sergeant Frank Riley from the English County Constabulary of Surrey.   The first drug-detection training course was held in 1976, followed by explosive-detection training in 1977.  Suspect apprehension was introduced in 1992, accelerant detection in 1997, and search and rescue in 1998.  There are currently 115 New Zealand police dog handlers, with from 90 to 95 operational dogs and 10 to 15 in training at any one time. 

A survey of police dog handlers was necessary because reasons for withdrawal of dogs from service in the country are not documented in official records.  Under Section policy, when a dog reaches seven years of age, a replacement is found and started through the training process.  From 7.5 years of age onwards, a dog is replaced according to logistical considerations.  Some dogs work longer if a replacement is not yet available.  Most dogs in the survey were male, and most remained intact during service. 

Prior Studies of Police and Military Dog Retirement

The authors note that there have been few published studies regarding the reasons for retirement of police dogs from service.  Two Norwegian authors (H. Kippenes and J. Gondalen, 1999) looked at 228 German shepherds from 1985 to 1995, finding that 97 dogs retired early (before ten years old), 38 of which did so because of skeletal disease.  Neoplasia accounted for 13 dogs retiring early.  Police dogs were found in that study to be at higher risk for skeletal lesions that were pet animals. 

A study by veterinarians at Lackland Air Force Base (Moore et al., citation below) looked at the records of 927 military working dogs (MWDs) that had died over a four-year period from 1993 through 1996, finding that the mean age at death was 10.06 years, though age at death increased steadily during the period studied.  One dog had lived to be nearly 15.  A surprisingly high percent, 85.2% (790/927), had been euthanized.  Dogs that died naturally averaged just over 8½ years.  Castrated males lived significantly longer, averaging 10½ years, than either spayed females (10.02 years) or sexually intact males (9.97 years). (There were no sexually intact females in the study population.)

The Lackland study found that Belgian shepherds made up a strong majority (61.5%) of the MWDs in the study. They did not live as long as German shepherds.  Mean age at death for dogs in the sporting and hound breeds (retrievers, pointers, and beagles) was significantly greater than mean age of dogs in the herding and working dog breeds (shepherds, Rottweilers, Bouvier des Flanders, Schnauzers, Dobermans).  The Lackland researchers noted that “sporting and hound breeds are used by the military for contraband detection, whereas herding and working breeds are dual-trained to also perform patrol-attack roles.”  They considered that this workload differential may influence longevity, but also that “breed differences in disease risk may favor sporting breed dogs.”  German shepherds were found more prone to spinal cord disease than Belgian Malinois.  Mean age at death or euthanasia was tabulated by breed as follows:

Breed	Number (%)	Mean Age	Range in Years
Belgian shepherd	570 (61.5%)	9.97	2.07 – 14.34
German shepherd	294 (20.6%)	10.18	2.04 – 14.44
Dutch shepherd	18 (1.9%)	10.07	4.62 – 12.40
German shepherd cross	13 (1.4%)	10.84	4.26 – 13.73
Labrador retriever	13 (1.4%)	12.56	11.2 – 14.41
Rottweiler	10 (1.1%)	10.87	9.07 – 12.68
Bouvier des Flandres	9 (1.0%)	10.70	8.95 – 12.35
Giant Schnauzer	2 (0.3%)	9.69	8.61 – 11.14
Beagle	2 (0.2%)	13.97	13.22 – 14.71
Labrador retriever cross	2 (0.2%)	14.28	13.99 – 14.57
Doberman pinscher	1 (0.1%)	8.83	NA
Golden retriever	1 (0.1%)	14.03	NA
English pointer	1 (0.1%)	12.32	NA

The authors of the study note that Belgian shepherds primarily resembled the Malinois, “although Belgian Tervuren are not uncommon.” 

A smaller study, also conducted at Lackland Air Force Base (Evans et al., citation below), looked at 268 MWDs that were discharged from service from 2000 to 2004 and found that the median age at discharge for German shepherds (8.59 years) was significantly lower than the median age at discharge of Belgian Malinois (10.61 years). The study found that when dogs were discharged at less than five years, the reason was most often for behavioral problems. 

It is not clear what explains why the two Lackland studies were inconsistent on the longevity of Belgian and German shepherds, with the earlier study (1993-1996) finding German shepherds living longer than Belgian shepherds but the later study (2000-2004) finding them being discharged sooner.  The differences in results in the two studies conducted only a few years apart have been noticed by other researchers.  (See Wahl et al., citation below.) 

Why New Zealand Dogs Left Service

The following table, adapted from the New Zealand study, provides detail as to why dogs left service.

Cause	Number (%)	Major Reason	Number per Subcategory
Retired	94 (70%)	Inability to meet physical demands	61
		Planned retirement due to age	11
		Loss of tracking	7
		Other	6
		Behavioral problems	5
		Poor bite work	4
Euthanized	24 (18%)	Medical problems	19
		Behavioral problems	4
		Unknown	1
Died	11 (8%)	Gastric dilation/volvulus	4
		Neoplasia	3
		Other	4
Killed	5 (5%)	Shot on duty	2
		Motor vehicle accident	2
		Drowned	1

Behavioral problems were described as “problematic aggression,” “scared,” “lack of aggression,” and “lacking drive.”  Many law enforcement personnel would argue that such problems should be detected early in training, so one must assume that some dogs were retired fairly quickly.  Either that, or some handlers were not effective in their work if aggression manifested itself after dogs worked significant periods. 

Dogs that lost tracking ability were sometimes also said to have lost ability in bite.  Medical problems leading to euthanasia included back/spinal problems, cancer, arthritis, blindness, and stomach and intestinal diseases, including a case of chronic inflammatory bowel disease.  One dog in the “other” category for death was suspected of being poisoned.  The dog that drowned was tracking a suspect who may have killed the dog to get away. 

Length of Service

As already noted, the average age of a New Zealand German shepherd police dog at death or retirement was found to be 6.6 years, younger than the currently accepted retirement age.  Assuming a dog begins service at approximately 18 months of age, many dogs will have a five-year service life (which in most law enforcement agencies would be regarded as excessively short).  According to the study, however, many dogs “live considerable time-spans in retirement, usually with their old handlers, as a family pet.” 

German shepherds have the highest breed incidence for degeneration of the lumbo-sacral disc according to a doctoral thesis submitted to Utrecht University.  The New Zealand researchers recommend that future studies look at whether the characteristic stance and gait of the German shepherd may predispose the breed to skeletal conditions.  (Many handlers believe that current German shepherd breeding programs are producing significantly different dogs than in the past.  In the U.S., law enforcement experience with German shepherds having such problems has been part of the push towards use of Belgian Malinois.)

The authors of the New Zealand study discussed reasons why the dogs in the New Zealand Police Dog Section died earlier than those in the Lackland study.  They noted that MWDs might be redeployed to less strenuous roles towards the end of their careers, such as becoming training/demonstration dogs.  There might be differences in selection for training, for euthanasia, and access to veterinary care as well. 

Conclusion

The authors of this blog are participating in research on breed comparisons with regard to certain police dog functions.  Breed choices in law enforcement and military work are often made because of traditions in particular agencies, but economic considerations are becoming more critical. Longer-lived dogs, and dogs with fewer veterinary problems, reduce costs.  Other factors, such as the proportion of dogs in litters that can eventually be put into service must also be considered (see Foyer et al., citation below).  Handler preferences and institutional history should no longer be the only reason for selecting specific breeds and breed types for police and military work. 

This blog was written by John Ensminger and L.E. Papet. 

Sources:

Evans, R.I., Herbold, J.R., Bradshaw, B.S., and Moore, G.E. (2007).  Causes for Discharge of Military Working Dogs from Service: 268 Cases (2000-2004). Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association, 231(8), 1215-20. 

Foyer, P., Wilsson, E., Wright, D., and Jensen, P. (2013). Early Experiences Modulate Stress Coping in a Population of German Shepherd Dogs.  Applied Animal Behaviour Science. Article in Press (posted April 22, 2013).

Moore, G.E., Burkman, K.D., Carter, M.N., and Peterson, M.R., (2001). Causes of Death or Reasons for Euthanasia in Military Working Dogs: 927 Cases (1993-1996).  Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association, 219(2), 209-214.

Wahl, J.M., Herbst, S.M., Clark, L.A., Tsai, K.L., and Murphy, K.E. (2008). A Review of Hereditary Diseases of the German Shepherd Dog.  Journal of Veterinary Behavior, 3, 255-265. 

Worth, A.J., Sandford, M., Gibson, B., Stratton, R., Erceg, V., Bridges, J., and Jones, B. (2013). Causes of Loss or Retirment from Active Duty for New Zealand Police German Shepherd Dogs.  Animal Welfare, 22, 167-174.  doi: 10.7120/09627286.22.2.167

Extraverted Dogs Seem to Enjoy Dog Parks, but Neurotic Dogs May Find Them Stressful

In writing a summary of dog park law, Fran Breitkopf and I noted that dog park sociology would inevitably become a topic for scientific journals.  We were thinking about what dog parks mean for people, rather than dogs, but four Canadian researchers (Ottenheimer Carrier et al., citation below) have published a study suggesting that dog parks may be very entertaining places for dogs that score high on Extraversion in personality tests, while probably being threatening and uncomfortable for dogs that score high on Neuroticism. 

Cortisol, hydrocortisone, is a steroid hormone produced in the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis in response to stress and other stimuli. It increases blood sugar through gluconeogenesis and aids in fat, protein, and carbohydrate metabolism.  It has been studied in baboons, monkeys, dogs, horses, and birds, though a recent paper notes that the relationships between cortisol, social behaviors, and personality traits have rarely been studied in non-human animals.  There have been some cortisol studies of dogs in kennel settings, as well as work situations for trained dogs, including service, therapy, and police dogs, but companion animals have generally been ignored. 

Canine Personalities

In an attempt to determine why cortisol levels might increase more in some dogs than others during visits to dog parks, the authors of this study looked for correlations that might occur based on a dog’s personality.  Studies of dog personality have often focused on “coping styles.”  Quoting Horváth et al., a study of police dogs (cite below), they note:

“[P]olice dogs characterized behaviourally as having an ambivalent coping style showed more signs of acute stress (e.g., low body posture, snout-licking, and paw-lifting) and demonstrated a cortisol surge in response to a threatening stimulus.”

Other assessments of personality are based on analysis of personality traits, such as exploration, boldness, fearfulness, and aggression.  For their dog park study, the Canadian researchers chose a personality assessment called the Monash Canine Personality Questionnaire-Revised (MCPQ-R), which uses a rating scale for 26 traits clustered into five personality dimensions:

• Extraversion
• Motivation
• Training Focus
• Amicability
• Neuroticism

Motivation and Training Focus are perhaps unique to domestic dogs in terms of personality measurement.  The researchers sought to determine relationships between cortisol, personality, and specific behaviors and postural changes indicative of play, agonism (conflict behavior), and stress, of dogs interacting in dog parks.

Study 1

In the first part of the study, 11 owners and dogs were recruited. The dogs ranged from 8 months to 11 years, most being spayed or neutered.  Owners of dogs in this part of the study tended to visit the dog park less than three times per month.  Each was given a saliva sampling kit and asked to use the equipment before and after taking a dog on a walk and before and during a visit to the Quidi Vidi Dog Park in St. John’s, Newfoundland, a space measuring 45 by 65 meters and enclosed by wire fencing, as shown in the first picture.  Dog owners congregate at several benches in the park.  There is a water fountain from which dogs can drink and two fake fire hydrants on which dog frequently urinate. Dog park sessions were video recorded. 

Study 2

The second part of the research involved 60 companion dogs ranging from 6 months to 15.5 years, 34 of which were purebred and 26 mixed, also recruited from the Quidi Vidi Dog Park.  Dogs had been owned an average of two and a half years and 81% were spayed or neutered.  Most dogs visited the park more than three times a month.  Since the dog park is recommended for dogs weighing more than 12 kg (26.5 lbs), most dogs were medium to large in size. 

Owners were recruited by researchers who had set up video equipment and asked if they would consent to having their dogs videotaped.  A consent form was provided, and basic information about the dog and the household was obtained.  Owners completed the MCPQ-R as a means of assessing a dog’s personality.  In other words, the personality assessments in the study were not made by the researchers, but by the owners of the dogs.  After a play session, a sample of the dog’s saliva was taken with a swab. 

Categories of Behavioral Activities

The behaviors documented by the research team from the videotapes were divided into four broad categories: (1) play/attention, (2) agonism, (3) stress, and (4) mounting.  Each of these broad categories except mounting had a number of possible manifestations, as described in the following table:

Behavior	Description
Play/attention
Exaggerated approach	Slow, running approach in sightline of partner; loose, rolling nature to run.
Exaggerated retreat	Backwards leap; head up towards partner.
Play bow	Forelimbs down; hind legs raised; tail erect or wagging.
Chase-me	Withdraw with looks backward; at a reduced pace or with loping stride; new instance of behaviour when it persisted for 5 seconds.
Open-mouth	Frontal display with teeth and lips showing; no biting.
Bow head	Nod head below shoulder level; maintain or nod up.
Play slap	Usually simultaneous slap of ground with two forelimbs, occurs in play bow position.
Leap-on	On hind legs, with front paws around partner’s head; tail up.
Bump	Use part of body to knock into partner.
Nose	Put nose and closed mouth to other; non-investigatory.
Bite	Make firm mouth contact (of scruff, rum, face, or body); force is tempered
Bite-at	Can have no clear object; biting at air in the direction of, but not touching, partner; can be partial or repeated.
Paw	Paw at other’s face or body.
Agonism
Growl	A low frequency but audible rumbling produced in the throat.
Bare teeth	Lips curled upward, possible exposure of teeth.
Snap	Sudden biting motion in direction of a conspecific.
Bite	Firm mouth contact where mouth and teeth have firm grip on conspecific.
Lunge	Sudden angular leap towards conspecific.
Chase	Driving away conspecific.
Stress
Tucked tail	Tail positioned between the back legs; new instance when tail remained tucked for 5 seconds.
Hunched posture	Back curved upward, body and head lower to the ground; new instance when back stayed curved for 5 seconds.
Paw lift	One front paw is lifted off the ground and slightly bent.
Snout lick	Tongue runs over top of snout, usually going over the nose.
Run away	Removing or attempting to remove oneself from altercation with conspecific; new instance counted when dog had chance to interact with other dog (stopping, looking back), but removed itself.
Yawn	Mouth open wide with large intake of breath.
Pull away	Removing or attempting to remove oneself from physical interaction with human.
Mounting	Attempting to clasp or successfully clasping front legs around conspecific’s body and performing pelvic thrusts.

On average, dogs were alone about a third of the time they were in the Quidi Vidi Dog Park.  They spent about 40% of their time with humans and about 23% with another dog or dogs.  Young male dogs spent more time in dyads (with one other dog) than was true of females of any age.  The researchers observed that “dogs that displayed more agonistic behaviours tended to exhibit more stress-related behaviours.”  (Perhaps it is true that bullies worry more about being bullied than most members of any species.)  Hunched posture was correlated significantly with stress-related behaviors.  Hunched posture also correlated highly with tucked tail, and the latter with “run away.”  Exaggerated approach correlated with play bow.

“Only males mounted and of the seven males that did so, three were sexually intact.”  There were no sexually receptive females, however, so mounting occurred outside of a sexual context, and was determined to occur “mainly in the context of play.” 

Agonistic behaviors were, according to the researchers, fairly rare.  This has been our personal experience as well. An aggressive dog, or one prone to attacking, is uncommon in most dog parks.  Owners will sooner or later put pressure on someone with such a dog to get control or leave.    

               

Correlations were also found with the MCPQ-R results.  Extraversion significantly predicted the amount of time dogs spent in dyads.  Neuroticism predicted the frequency of hunched posture.  Training Focus and Motivation on the personality assessment did not correlate with any behavior measures, however. The second picture shows a group of dogs in the Quidi Vidi Dog Park.  

Cortisol Levels

Cortisol levels increased more from visits to the dog park than from taking walks.  Cortisol levels in five dogs were negatively correlated with the number of visits to the park.  That is, for some dogs that came infrequently to the park, cortisol levels were very high upon making a visit.  Hunched posture correlated significantly with cortisol levels. 

Dogs that had not visited the park for some time tended to show more stress-related behaviors.  Thus, “dogs that had visited the park within 1 week of the test session showed significantly fewer behavioural indicators of stress than those which had visited more than a week prior to the session.” The researchers hypothesized:

“Taken together, these data suggest that the increase in cortisol seen in dogs in the dog park is caused by at least two processes: first, most dogs are likely emotionally and physiologically aroused by the presence of conspecifics [other dogs], both familiar and unfamiliar, and by the dog park’s physical environment, resulting in increased cortisol; second, dogs who are not frequent or recent visitors are likely additionally aroused, or stressed, by the novelty of the dog park setting, thereby contributing to higher cortisol levels (in dogs that visit rarely), or to higher stress-related behaviour frequencies (in dogs which are not rare visitors, but which had not visited the park within the past week). An additional reason for increased cortisol in some dogs in the dog park may be related to their underlying predisposition towards fearfulness. In this study, dogs which scored high in the MCPQ-R Neuroticism dimension showed higher frequencies of hunched posture, but not higher levels of cortisol. This may be due to the fact that less fearful/low neurotic dogs in this setting show arousal-induced increases in cortisol that may mask any relationship between neuroticism and cortisol. Those dogs showing hunched posture are arguably the most stressed dogs in the park, as the frequency of hunched posture also correlated highly with the frequency of total stress behaviours, and more specifically, with the behaviours of tucked tail and run away.”

The researchers suggest that “owners of dogs showing lowered posture in the dog park might be advised to reconsider exposing their dog to this setting for welfare reasons.” 

Extraversion in Owners and Dogs

Dogs that visited the Quidi Vidi Dog Park were significantly higher in Extraversion than in a prior study of a large group of dogs. 

“This may imply that the dogs in our sample represent a subset of the dog population, i.e., highly extraverted dogs, which are described by their owners as highly active, energetic, excitable, hyperactive, lively and restless…. It is possible that the owners of such dogs are more likely to bring their dogs to an off-leash park than are owners of less active dogs to provide them with opportunities to socialize and exercise. Alternatively, dogs that attend the dog park may become more extraverted through that process, as they have opportunities to be physically active and to socialize.”

Our prediction that dog parks will lead to sociological studies of humans may have to be modified to say that a comprehensive study should include both human and canine behavior. 

Conclusion

The researchers conclude that most dogs, “especially those which owners rate as physically active and friendly, appear to have overall positive experiences in the dog park, and likely benefit from the physical activity and social interactions that such a setting provides.”  The researchers note that a study on factors that relate to dog park attendance patterns and behavior outcomes is warranted.  If the dog park phenomenon continues to grow, as seems to us inevitable, such studies will surely follow. 

Thanks to Fran Breitkopf for comments on this blog. Thanks to Dr. Walsh for providing the pictures of the Quidi Vidi Dog Park. 

Sources:

Ottenheimer Carrier, L, Cyr, A., Anderson, R.E., and Walsh, C.J. (2013). Exploring the Dog Park: Relationship between Social Behaviours, Personality, and Cortisol in Companion Dogs.  Applied Animal Behaviour Science, posted online 2013)

Horváth, Z., Igyártó, B.Z., Magyar, A., and Miklósi, A. (2007). Three Different Coping Styles in Police Dogs Exposed to a Short-Term Challenge.  Hormones and Behavior, 52, 621–630.

Is the American Criminal Justice System Incapable of Adopting Valid Scent ID Procedures?

Scent identifications result from various procedures, including station identifications and scent lineups, the former of which has become a sort of odd forensic procedure in southern California and the latter of which has apparently always been structured without regard to forensic research throughout the United States.  Having recently appeared as a witness regarding scent identification in a European trial, I also begin to despair of the ability of the American judiciary to calculate the forensic value of scent identification evidence.  Two recent cases, one from California, one from Texas, illustrate why I believe there is reason to despair. 

American law enforcement has almost insisted on performing poorly structured scent identifications, with the possible exception of agencies (like the FBI) that prefer to confine scent lineups to the investigatory stages of their treatment of a crime and avoid using scent-lineup results during prosecutorial stages.   In other words, neither American law enforcement nor American courts have adopted standards to assure that scent identifications have a reasonable diagnostic ratio (which could place such procedures in an intermediate category for forensic value, as I and two scientists have discussed elsewhere).  This means that the risk of misidentification in scent identification procedures that have been described by U.S. courts is often high, and even those judges that know or suspect this only allow such procedures to remain on the record by deeming their admission “harmless error.”

J.E.R. Frijters and J. Boksem, a scientist and a lawyer, described Dutch scent lineup procedures as akin to Russian roulette (“Russische roulette”).  Yet those procedures were better designed than the procedures described in the cases here.  The history behind the exclusion of such evidence in the Netherlands was discussed extensively by Resi Gerritsen and Ruud Haak in a book previously reviewed here.  The problem is that if Dutch courts were playing Russian roulette with a pistol that had one bullet in a chamber that can hold six, U.S. courts are using a pistol with a chamber that has three or four bullets.  Even Nick, the character portrayed by Christopher Walken in The Deer Hunter, was not taking that much risk. 

Murder at a Pasadena Nightclub (California v. Reynolds)

Ebony Huel was shot and killed in a crowd outside the Underground Club in Pasadena on August 17, 2007.  Johnl Dvon Reynolds was charged with the crime.  The prosecution’s theory was that Reynolds was attempting to kill Sean Quintero, who had implicated him in a robbery that occurred in 2005.  Reynolds was on parole at the time of the murder. 

Earlier on August 17, Reynolds had showed Vanessa Calderon a handgun with a yellow or tan barrel.  At the time he was wearing a beanie and a red Chicago Bulls jersey.  Later that day, Leeban Adan drove Calderon and Reynolds to the Underground Club.  Calderon was waiting near the car later when she heard a gunshot and Reynolds and Adan ran towards her.  When they got in the car, either Reynolds or Adan tossed a gun into her lap, the same gun she had seen that morning.  Calderon threw the gun out the window.  Reynolds told her to get it back and she left the car to look for the gun but she did not find it. 

Huel died from the gunshot wound to her head.  A search of the area produced a red beanie and a yellow, four-barreled handgun.  Reynolds was wearing a Jordan Chicago Bulls jersey when he was arrested the day after the shooting. 

“Reynolds was placed with Calderon in an interview room that was electronically monitored. Detective Max Dahlstein testified he overheard Reynolds instructing Calderon to tell the police the handgun had accidentally discharged when Reynolds attempted to grab it away to prevent her from shooting ‘Shady Stupid’ (Quintero) for snitching on Reynolds. Reynolds explained to Calderon that, unlike her, he could be imprisoned for life. Calderon agreed to 'take the rap' for Reynolds. She subsequently told police that she had been playing with the handgun when it had accidentally went off. Calderon later recanted this admission.”

Adan did not testify because he was killed before Reynolds’ trial. 

Scent Transfer Unit and Station Identifications

The scent identification evidence began with the preparation of scent pads using a scent transfer unit:

“Michael Wooldridge, a canine handler for the Long Beach Police Department, went to the shooting scene the night of the murder. Using a special device called a scent transfer unit, which is similar to a small, portable vacuum cleaner, Wooldridge transferred scent from a beanie and a handgun he was given to separate sterile gauze pads, making three scent pads for each item.”

The trial court held a pretrial hearing under California Evidence Code § 402 to determine the admissibility of dog-scent identification testimony because “no published decision has yet affirmed under People v. Kelly [17 Cal.3d 24 (1976)] that the scientific community has generally accepted use of a scent transfer unit.”  The trial court held that the evidence was admissible. 

The actual identification of Reynolds by a dog was what is generally called a station identification and is described by the court as follows:

“Three days after the shooting Edward (Ted) Hamm, a scent hound handler for the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department, and his dog Bojangles, a trained scent hound, went to the police station where Reynolds was being held. Hamm had Bojangles sniff one of the handgun scent pads prepared by Officer Wooldridge. Bojangles then led Hamm through the first floor of the station to the room in which Reynolds was being held and ‘alerted’ to Reynolds by walking up to him. Officers moved Reynolds to a room on the second floor of the police station, while Hamm had Bojangles sniff one of the beanie scent pads prepared by Wooldridge. Bojangles again led officers to the room where Reynolds was being held and alerted to Reynolds.”

Hamm’s testimony at the trial is summarized by the appellate court as follows:

“Hamm initially explained his general approach to training dogs to trail or follow scents. He then described the training Bojangles had received, specifically focusing on the dog's training in different environments including police stations (station identifications). Hamm testified, at the time of this proceeding, five of Bojangles's station identifications for the Pasadena Police Department had been confirmed. Hamm then described the station identifications conducted at the Pasadena police station on August 20, 2007 in which Bojangles twice followed a trail that led to Reynolds, who had been placed in different parts of the station, each time after the dog had sniffed a different scent pad.”

The trial court also took notice of earlier cases regarding Hamm’s use of Bojangles (California v. Salcedo (Super. Ct. L.A. County, 2005, No. GA052057) and California v. Elias et al. (Super. Ct. L.A. County, 2010.No. GA069722).   Defense counsel objected that the prior unpublished cases did not establish that the STU was generally accepted in the scientific community. 

“Counsel also argued the results of Bojangles's scent discrimination and trailing were ambiguous. Rather than place his paw on the person he has trailed, the dog was trained to stand by the person, which could mean the dog was simply waiting for the next command rather than signaling he had matched the scent to the person. Counsel additionally argued it had not been shown that Bojangles's initial scent identification of Reynolds had not influenced the dog's second scent identification of him. In this regard counsel asserted, ‘But it seems to me that we would have to rule out the dog's ability to remember the scent he had just done a trail on when he gets a new one and trails my client again.’”

As to the use of the scent transfer unit, following a hearing in an earlier trial, “the trial court tentatively ruled that dog-scent identification evidence obtained through the use of an STU was generally accepted by the scientific community.”   

Testimony of Forensic Psychologist

Dr. Nancy Kaser-Boyd, a clinical and forensic psychologist, testified that Reynolds had PTSD.  In an interview, Reynolds told her that Calderon was attempting to shoot Quintero for having sent Reynolds to prison.  Reynolds said he tried to stop Calderon and the gun discharged accidentally.  When Kaser-Boyd said no one saw a girl with a gun, Reynolds said “Okay, I was the one with the gun.” 

Conviction

The jury convicted Reynolds of first degree murder by a person with gang affiliations.  Reynolds was sentenced to a term of 25 years to life for first degree murder, which was doubled under the Three Strikes law, with another 25 years added for a firearm-use enhancement. 

Dog-Scent Identification Challenged on Appeal

Admission of evidence that a dog trailed or tracked a suspect from a crime scene has been upheld if an adequate foundation is provided, i.e., that the dog was properly trained in tracking humans and the handler was qualified to use the dog (citing California v. Craig, 86 Cal.App.3d 905 (Ct. App. 1978); California v. Malgren, 139 Cal.App.3d 234 (Ct. App. 1983)).  (For a discussion of the different standards for admission of scientific evidence under state and federal decisions and how these standards have been applied in scent identification cases, see Police and Military Dogs, 62-63.) 

The appellate court held that Reynolds failed “to provide an adequate record on appeal” to question the dog-scent evidence.  This means that the appellate court could not review the evidentiary basis for the trial court’s decision” regarding the admission of the evidence derived from the use of the STU.  In any case, any error that might have occurred by admitting the dog-scent evidence was, according to the court, harmless. 

“There was overwhelming evidence Reynolds was the individual who fired the shot outside the Underground Club, killing Huel. The evidence at trial established a clear motive for the murder: Reynolds, an admitted gang member, was angry with Quintero for having informed the police about Reynolds's involvement in a robbery, which targeted Quintero for retaliation by Reynolds. Two eye witnesses, Adan and Bonwell, identified Reynolds as the man they saw extend his arm towards Quintero, followed by a gunshot. Before the shooting Calderon saw Reynolds in possession of a distinctive handgun, which Reynolds demanded she retrieve after she had thrown it out the car window following the shooting. Reynolds also made highly damaging, incriminating statements: In urging Calderon to claim responsibility for the shooting, Reynolds said he was facing a life sentence. He also admitted to Dr. Kaser–Boyd that he, not Calderon, held the gun; and he conceded he was angry with Quintero for having betrayed him to the police. Based on this largely undisputed evidence, admission of the dog-scent identification evidence could not have prejudiced Reynolds.”

The judgment of the trial court was affirmed. 

Analysis

Station identifications, a term derived from the location where such procedures are generally conducted, are a flawed forensic procedure.  When they occur by accident, such as when a dog loses a trail and is brought back to a police station where, by chance, the person being trailed has arrived by other means, the dog’s alert provides useful evidence.  It is a variation of a trail being lost at one point and resumed at another. 

When station identifications are structured as was done in this case, they lack the cautions that can be built into a scent lineup.  It would be as if visual lineups of eyewitnesses to crimes were to be conducted by putting the witnesses in parks near the courthouse and having various suspects come near the bench on which the witness in random order, along with whoever else happened to pass by.  There are too many aspects that cannot be controlled. 

The identification of a real person in a scent lineup, as opposed to a scent (in a procedure sometimes just called a “scent match”) increases the possibility of cueing.  It is likely the defendant is dressed differently from most people in the station, likely that he is not working the way many other people are. Where did the tracking inside the station start?  Did the dog have to go up several floors? How many people were in the room where the dog found him?  Were any of them sufficiently like the defendant that a real choice was available to the dog?  In an experimental environment near Phoenix, it was demonstrated that dogs can trail from an IED explosion to a room with potential suspects including the “perpetrator,” yet alert to a non-perpetrator despite the presence of the individual that they have presumably been tracking from the explosion site.  Numerous questions like this have to be answered before the procedure can be deemed objective, and it is doubtful that most of the flaws in such a haphazard method can be eliminated. 

The court may be correct that any error in introducing the station identification was harmless.  The non-canine evidence was overwhelming.  Nevertheless, California courts should be disturbed that scent evidence so often has to be deemed harmless to avoid overturning convictions as there will be cases where better procedures could provide solid evidence that could withstand challenges where other evidence needs less corroboration than was the case here.  California v. Reynolds, 2013 WL 604188 (Ct. App. 2013).

Suit for Deprivation of Rights (Curtis v. Anthony)

The federal district court for the Southern District of Texas granted summary judgment on claims by three men who were arrested, charged, and incarcerated as a result of two different sets of scent lineups conducted by one of the defendants, Keith Pikett.  The lineups are described by the Fifth Circuit as follows:

“To conduct his lineups, Pikett made use of scent-discriminating bloodhounds. First, Pikett would obtain a scent sample from the suspect under investigation by wiping the suspect with a sterile gauze pad. The gauze pad, containing the suspect's ‘human scent’ and ‘skin cells,’ would be stored in a Ziploc bag until the time of the lineup.  At the time of the lineup, a second officer would arrange six cans, one containing the suspect's scent pad and the other five containing scent pads from other persons of the same gender and race. The officer would arrange the cans approximately ten feet apart and positioned perpendicular to the wind so as to minimize the crossing of scents.  Thereafter, Pikett would expose a bloodhound to a scent sample taken from the crime scene. The trained bloodhound would ‘alert’ if the scent pad from any of the six cans matched the crime scene sample. Pikett would repeat the exercise with a second bloodhound to confirm the first bloodhound's alert.” 

Pikett was a deputy with the Fort Bend Sheriff’s Department but he volunteered his services to the Houston Police Department.  At the time of the lineups in 2007 to 2009, the Fifth Circuit notes that “Texas courts uniformly had accepted Pikett as an expert on dog-scent lineups.”

Texas Courts and Dog-Scent Lineups

The Fifth Circuit reviewed Texas decisions regarding scent lineups, but noted a trend towards increasing skepticism finally resulting in its own decision in Winfrey v. San Jacinto County, 481 Fed.Appx. 969 (5^th Cir. 2012).  In that case, the Fifth Circuit itself reversed the summary judgment of a district court dismissing a suit against Pikett, “citing a factual dispute over whether a videotape of the dog-scent lineup at issue demonstrated that Pikett had manipulated his bloodhounds to cue false alerts during the lineups.”

The Fifth Circuit then reviewed the encounters of the three plaintiffs who were now suing Pikett and others.

Scent Lineup Case 1: Burglaries of T-Mobile Stores

In June 2007, Ronald Curtis was found near the location of a T-Mobile store that had been burglarized. He and a passenger in his car provided conflicting accounts to Houston Police Department officers, and various items that might be used in burglaries were found in the car, including a crowbar which had markings matching markings found on the back door of the store.  Mud was found at the crime scene, and Curtis and his passenger had muddy shoes when they were detained.  Both Curtis and the passenger were released by a magistrate who found insufficient probable cause to hold them. 

The investigation continued.  A still photo from a surveillance video at another T-Mobile store that was burglarized was thought by an investigator to match Curtis’s driver’s license photo.  The investigating detective approached Pikett to conduct a scent lineup.  Curtis refused to provide a voluntary scent sample but one was obtained by subpoena.  Concerning the scent lineups in this investigation, the court stated:

“Pikett used his dogs to compare Curtis's scent with scent samples taken from the three burglarized stores. Stivers obtained these scent samples weeks and, in some cases, months after the times of the burglaries. Accordingly, the burglarized stores had experienced routine cleanings and customer traffic between the times of the burglaries and the times that Stivers obtained the scent samples. Nevertheless, the dogs alerted to a match between each store's scent sample and Curtis's scent.”

Curtis was indicted and arrested, but a string of burglaries continued while he was in jail.  After eight months, Curtis was released and the charges were dropped without a trial.

Scent Lineup Case 2: Gang Style Murders in Houston

Three people were murdered by being shot in the head in a house in Houston in November 2007 and the perpetrators set the home on fire.  Houston Police Department officers found charred remnants of a gasoline can, a cigarette lighter, and two guns, as well as the remains of the victims.  The gas can was traced to a service station where the surveillance video recorded the purchasers.  One of them was identified as Cedric Johnson. 

Johnson provided a voluntary scent sample which was used as a comparison for four scent samples taken from items at the crime scene.  The dogs matched each item.  Johnson was arrested and charged with the murders, and a grand jury indicted him.  Johnson’s cell mate contacted the district attorney to say that Johnson had confessed to the shootings.  In speaking to the investigators, the cell mate relayed information known only to investigators. 

Johnson identified Curvis Bickham as his accomplice.  The investigators asked Pikett to conduct additional scent testing.  The scent samples from the murder scene were by then more than a year old.  Nevertheless, “the bloodhounds alerted to a match for three of the four items.”  Bickham was arrested, charged, and indicted for two of the murders. 

Then Samuels recanted his statements and confessed to perpetrating the murders himself.  In May 2009, Johnson and Bickham were released and the charges against them dropped.   Later, the Houston Police Department determined that Samuels could not have perpetrated the murders since he was in Boston at the time of the shootings.  A further dog-scent lineup b Pikett indicated Samuels’ scent did not match any of the items from the murder scene.  Samuels ultimately admitted that he had falsely confessed to the murders to stop threats and attacks made by gang members affiliated with Johnson. 

Section 1983 Action

Reynolds, Johnson, and Bickham sued, under 42 U.S.C. 1983, for deprivation of their rights. They alleged that Pikett had manipulated and misrepresented the results of his dog-scent lineups to manufacture fraudulent inculpatory evidence, that investigators had failed to intervene to prevent these frauds, or alternatively that the investigators had conspired with Pikett to manufacture fraudulent evidence, that Pikett’s supervisor had failed to train and supervise Pikett, and that the City of Houston and Fort Bend County had failed to establish policies to monitor use of dog-scent lineups for unreliability and fraud.

The district court was affirmed by the Fifth Circuit in its grant of summary judgment based on qualified immunity.  The Fifth Circuit cited its earlier language in Winfrey v. San Jacinto County, 2012 WL 3062159 (5^th Cir. 2012), that the defendants had not been “objectively unreasonable in seeking Pikett’s assistance, and then using the resulting information as part of their investigation,” given that, at the time, “Pikett enjoyed a solid reputation.” Also, there was other evidence corroborating the results of the scent lineups, which the Fifth Circuit was sufficient to satisfy “the standard for probable cause even without the evidence from Pikett’s lineups.” 

In the Fifth Circuit’s Winfrey case (which was not published and therefore not binding precedent in the Circuit), the panel concluded that the plaintiff had raised a sufficient factual issue as to whether Pikett had cued his dogs during the scent lineup.  Although Pikett had denied this, an expert witness had described certain behaviors, such as jerking on leashes and strategically stopping as he and the dog paced a row of cans, that the expert described as consistent with an attempt to induce alerting behavior.  Thus, the court in that case could appropriately reverse the granting of summary judgment.  Here, however, there was “independent and untainted evidence … corroborating the results of Pikett’s lineups.”  Therefore, there was no “alternative reason to reverse summary judgment” as to the defendants. 

Analysis

The plaintiffs here, all defendants in criminal cases, tried to push their luck too far in filing suits against almost everyone involved in their prior indictments and incarcerations.  Sufficiently few facts are given concerning the scent lineups conducted by Pikett that a detailed criticism is not possible.  It appears that, as with prior lineups that have been discussed here (see, e.g., blogs for April 22, 2010, and March 29, 2011), Pikett used old samples, may not have properly isolated scents, and conducted lineups in a manner where cueing was possible.   Curtis v. Anthony, 2013 WL 823428 (5^th Cir. 2013)

The Unfortunate Belief That Scent Procedures Can Ignore Science

Courts have admitted dog tracking evidence over challenges based on arguments that such evidence does not pass as scientific, saying for instance that a scientific inquiry was “not required because it would be a superfluous confirmation of that which is already known.”  U.S. v. Outlaw, 134 F.Supp. 807 (W.D. Tex. 2001).  This logic has been inappropriately extended to scent lineups.  See Michigan v. Giles, 2008 WL 2436529 (Ct. App. 2008) (“We are not persuaded that the evidence offered was of such a ‘scientific’ nature as to necessitate application of Daubert to the scent line-up and defendant has not presented a case which would persuade us to do so.”), 769 N.W.2d 683 (2009) (order denying leave to appeal). For additional citations, see discussion and notes in Police and Military Dogs at 62-3. 

The fact that canine behavior and procedures that involve such behavior cannot be fully subjected to scientific analysis because of the variables in a dog’s behavior seems to have led to a belief that even research on how those procedures can be made more reliable can be ignored. This amounts to saying that traditional handler practices need take no notice of science. There is a considerable and growing literature on the use of scent lineups, some of which could make the evidence of significant forensic value, as has been discussed elsewhere.

Whether the American criminal justice system would accept the cost of scientifically conducted scent-lineup procedures is a separate issue, but failing to conduct scent identifications and lineups in optimal formats will continue to mean that scent identification evidence should be viewed as very low on the evidentiary ladder and probably not worthy of being on the ladder at all. 

Conclusions

There has been at least one wrongful conviction based largely on a scent lineup. (Dedge v. Florida, 442 So.2d 429 (Ct. App. 1983; Dedge was exonerated by DNA evidence in 2004; see also Merran, A.H. Anatomy of a Wrongful Conviction: State v Dedge and What It Tells Us about Our Flawed Criminal Justice System. University of Pennsylvania Journal of Social Change, 13, 137). California v. Reynolds and Curtis v. Anthony do not involve wrongful convictions, but they do put scent identification in a bad light.  

The Innocence Project has labeled scent lineups as junk science.  This is a harsh criticism but is actually correct as to those scent lineups that have been described in any detail by American courts.  The criminal justice system should be making a better effort to assure that this label does not stick or, as happened in the Netherlands, our game of Russian roulette with scent identification procedures will result in more wrongful convictions. There is a fix to this problem, but law enforcement administrators and trial and appellate judges have to first open their eyes. 

This blog was written by John Ensminger and L.E. Papet.