Law and Order Volume: 36 Issue: 7 Dated: (July 1988) Pages: 43-45
This article discusses a survey of court proceedings which discloses various rules for the admission of bloodhound evidence.
A number of State courts have held that bloodhound-trailing evidence is admissible if certain conditions and procedures are followed, while others have held such evidence is inadmissable for various reasons. Court decisions handed down in California, Georgia, the State of Washington, Montana, Arizona, North Carolina, and New Hampshire are cited. The reaction of juries to bloodhound evidence is discussed.
National Institute of Justice/
Box 6000, Dept F, Rockville, MD 20849, United States
NCJRS Photocopy Services
Box 6000, Rockville, MD 20849-6000, United States
United States of America