Given the inherent difficulty of cross-examining dogs, I think the court will draw a distinction between “speculative sweeps” and reacting to specific information. For example if a dog sniff was used to confirm the advice of an informer that drugs were on a premises, the search warrant obtained may be good.

In the United States, we used to have a Constitution before it was decimated by the Bush administration, DOJ, DHS, and NSA. In that Constitution used to be a 4th Amendment, and there also used to be a Sixth Amendment right to cross examine a witness. When that right has been foreclosed there are a number of cases which federal courts of appeals have reversed.

Here is a bloodhound case where the old Fifth Circuit humorously reversed for just that reason–no opprtunity to cross the dogs, although the defense attorney appealing did not make that argument precisely.

U.S. v. Rozen, 600 F.2d 494 (5th Cir. 1979)

This case has precedent in both the 5th and the 11th Circuits because it was decided before the 5th Split into the 11th in 1982.

The blood hound was named Clyde and this colloquy was reprouduced by Judge Godbold:

If nothing else can be salvaged from this case, testimony concerning Clyde deserves to be perpetuated. After the dog handler described Clyde’s experience and skill this ensued:

19MR. MC ABEE (prosecutor): Your Honor, at this time, I would like to submit to the Court that the testimony concerning Clyde, the bloodhound, entitles him to be considered as an expert in this case. And that the testimony of Mr. Powell concerning Clyde will be used in that light.

20MR. ENTIN (defense counsel): Your Honor, I would have to object. I think I ought to have the opportunity to confront and cross examine Clyde.

21NOTE: (BRIEF COLLOQUY.)

22MR. ENTIN: Your Honor, I think that the witness can testify as to what Clyde did, as to making him an expert in terms of putting him into the mind of an animal, I don’t think we can do that. I think he can testify that he took the dog and the dog led him somewhere, but as to anything else, I really don’t think that that makes him an expert.

23THE COURT: The dog or the man?

24MR. ENTIN: The dog was an expert, but the man was only carrying his leash. It’s an unusual situation.

25THE COURT: Well, I think if you give a full background of the dog’s training and the dog’s ability to smell . . .

26MR. MC ABEE: . . . It has happened in the state of Georgia on several occasions where a bloodhound such as Clyde have (sic) been qualified in State Court, sir.

27MR. ENTIN: Your Honor, I’m not saying we can’t qualify the dog, we can’t qualify the witness.

28MR. MC ABEE: Well, in this particular instance, Your Honor, it’s unlikely, Clyde has since died, I believe, so we don’t have Clyde to bring in before the Court.

29THE COURT: I’ll let him testify.

30MR. ENTIN: What about the application of the dead man’s rule?

31THE COURT: We don’t have communication between a dead dog so I’m going to let it in.

32Though successful in this appeal, counsel for appellant undoubtedly will always regret that in this colloquy, now enshrined in the official reports, he overlooked the confrontation clause of the Constitution.

33The conviction is REVERSED with directions to enter a judgment of acquittal.

The amount of tax money spent on the investigation was staggering and there were literally hundreds of people involved including local law enforcement.

What substantial and credible hard evidence was the identification of Hatfill based on?

Well. A gamut of crickies and indeeds bmaz.

I’d put the scientific methodology I’ve seen related to the anthrax investigation by FBI and their handlers at DOJ right up there with having Obama Girl sniff for evidence.

If you are reduced to the subjective, unscientific premise that doggies with big ears, big noses, and soulful sad eyes alerted and you want to use it to put someone away for life or put Pavulon, KCL, and Na Pentathol into an angiocath and snuff him, by often stopping his diaphragm while he’s still conscious,(because of the incompetents prisons use for physicians) for lethal injections then we need to require pathetic FBI to get off their bumbling lazy ass and come up with some credible evidence, and that goes for the USAs and AUSAs who work in concert with them.

The Hounds of Hatfill is a metaphor for the paradigm shift DOJ has now firmly embedded as its MO. The idea for them is to take a target down period, and any relationship to the truth or credible evidence is deemed purely irrelevent.

Forgive me, but when someone mentions Tinkerbelle or Tinkerbell, Pixie Dust comes to mind, particularly when it’s used to investigate a purveyor of anthrax dust containing spores.

In the first place, the DOJsters have explicitly stated Hatfill is not a target whatever that means. Instead of putting foot in mouth or more anatomically specific deep into other orrifices Mueller’s Clowns should have witheld any comment whatsoever about a “person of interest” until they had credible evidence.

The idea was simply to put the squeeze on Hatfill. All too often law enforcement isn’t interested in catching the correct perp, rather they’re interested in closing the case and garnering credit. The little detail that the anthrax killer or killers have not been caught doesn’t seem high on the list to the FBI or the AUSAs running the case.

There are good reasons why Polygraphs are not allowed into a courtroom as evidence–and I could care less whether FBI or other law enforcement uses them in internal investigations–because science isn’t of primary interest to them. A number of pharmacologic agents can scotch a polygraph–and Beta Blockers are one of the most widely known meds that can.

The Effects of Drugs in Psychophysiological Veracity Examinations

Scientifically speaking, even if the dogs had been “certified” and there were some kind of standard, I’d kick dogs alerting all the way down the stairs, and characterize them as far worse than a polygraph which correctly is not allowed in courts as evidence.

Federal and state courts make scientific and medical decisions every day, and the disconnect between scientific and medical reality and opinions that they render is apalling beyond the pale. I’ve never had a great deal of respect for the trilogy of Daubert, Joiner, and Kumho Tire and Daubert determinations of scientific reliability.

I’ve been meaning to ask if y’all have read the stuff that Glenn Greenwald wrote about anthrax, specifically related to ABC/Brian Ross reporting.

It was awhile back, and his main point was that the anthrax attacks had a lot to do with getting people to support the war. Coming on the heels of 9/11 the anthrax attacks were used to really hype everyone up and give us all the impression that it would be inevitable that we would be facing all sorts of attacks. Ross reported links between Saddam/the strain of anthrax “proving” a connection.

Ross did very breathless (and later proven to be non-fact-based) reporting about the anthrax attacks on several occasions, anonymously sourced of course, and Glenn did some correspondence with ABC to ask why they had never retracted their stories.

Not so much related to Hatfill but very interesting part of the whole anthrax thang.