UNIVERSITY OF THE DISTRICT OF - UDC Law Review

323 (Friedrich G. Barth et al. eds., 2003) [hereinafter Aerodynamics of Canine Olfaction]. The purpose of this study was to
determine how an electronic trace detector could be designed to mimic the capabilities of a dog’s nose. Id.
44 Id. at 325.
45 See Sniffers, supra note 34, at 199 (observing that a detection dog’s ability to “‘read’ detailed olfactory ‘messages”’ is directly tied
to proximity sniffing and, therefore, “in order to properly interrogate chemical traces it really is necessary for a dog to poke its nose
into everyone’s business”).
46 See Aerodynamics of Canine Olfaction, supra note 43, at 334 (explaining that “evolution has ... given the canine an agile platform
with which to bring its aerodynamic sampler into close proximity with a scent source”).
47 Id. at 327-28; see also Sniffers, supra note 34, at 199.
48 See Aerodynamics of Canine Olfaction, supra note 43, at 327; see also Sniffers, supra note 34, at 203.
49 See Aerodynamics of Canine Olfaction, supra note 43, at 327-28.
50 Id. The mucous lining in a canine’s nose serves an important purpose in canine olfaction. Specifically, it can trap contraband
particulates, resulting in “the natural way of sampling and chemosensing aerosol-borne trace substances.” Id. at 331; see also
Sniffers, supra note 34, at 196 (observing that a dry nose or “[e]xtreme aridity” can compromise quality of sniff by inhibiting
olfaction).
51 Even in situations involving more traditional uses of drug-detection dogs, such as luggage or vehicle sniffs, there is little data
concerning the dog’s accuracy. As discussed in Part III.A, almost all of our understanding of detection-dog reliability arises from
anecdotal discussions in judicial opinions concerning the individual detection dog at issue in the case. See R v. Kang-Brown,
[2008] 1 S.C.R. 456, 2008 SCC 18 P 15 (Can.) (observing that “courts are ill-equipped to develop an adequate legal framework for
use of police dogs [because] ... little is known about investigative techniques using sniffer dogs. Indeed, the record remains
singularly bereft of useful information about sniffer dogs.”). The data that does exist suggest real questions about reliability,
however. See infra note 204 (discussing, among other things, studies of drug-detection dog field accuracy as reported by the
Privacy Ombudsman of New South Wales to the Australian Parliament, which revealed that about seventy-three percent of those
searched on the basis of a positive canine sniff were found not to be in possession of illegal drugs).
52 See Sniffers, supra note 34, at 205 (explaining that “[i]n the animal world, the only remedy for [breezes interrupting the sniff
process] is proximity: If your nostrils are touching the sampled surface, then the wind is not an issue”).
53 As the U.S. Department of Justice has explained:
[P]articulate contamination is easily transferred from one surface to another, so a person who has handled cocaine will transfer
cocaine particles to anything else he or she touches, including skin, clothing, door handles, furniture, and personal belongings.
Completely removing particulate contamination from an object requires rigorous cleaning, and, in the case of bare hands, a single
thorough washing may not be sufficient to remove all particles.
Selection of Drug Detectors, supra note 32, at 6 (emphasis added).
54 See generally Kyllo v. United States, 533 U.S. 27 (2001). For a discussion of the police inferencing issue, see infra Part II.B.
55 McDonald v. United States, 335 U.S. 451, 456 (1948).
155