An Evaluation of 42 Accelerant Detection Canine Teams

Abstract

It is estimated that over 200 accelerant detection canines (ADCs) are currently assisting in fire investigations throughout the United States. On many occasions, their ability and reliability have been called into question. The Pinellas County Forensic Laboratory evaluated 42 accelerant detection canine teams in their ability to discriminate between common accelerants and pyrolysis products, to detect common accelerants at low concentrations, to precisely locate accelerants and, to detect different classes of accelerants. Ultimately, the accuracy, dependability and overall effectiveness varied from canine to canine and handler to handler and appeared to be somewhat limited by the canine's training, handling and maintenance. While most of the canine teams performed extremely well and could be an asset to fire investigation, some proved to be unreliable. A universal endorsement or condemnation of all accelerant detection canines could not be made; however, endorsements of specific canine teams and trainers were possible. Every working canine team should be evaluated independently. Routine testing is imperative to establish the canine abilities and limitations.

Accuracy and Reliability of Dogs in Surveying for Desert Tortoise (Gopherus Agassizii)

“…Scent discrimination in dogs is well documented (Johnston 1999, Syrotuck 2000 and canines are used every day to detect and positively identify specific objects or trace elements including live people (Fenton 1992), human remains (Komar 1999), accelerants (Tindall and Lothridge 1995), narcotics (Lorenzo et al 2003), and termites (Brooks et al 2003). Dogs have been shown to be trainable on up to 10 different target substances, and the more individual targets trained, the faster the dog learns (Williams and Johnston 2002).…”

Modern Instrumental Limits of Identification of Ignitable Liquids in Forensic Fire Debris Analysis

“…GC-MSD provided an LOI of 0.625 pL on-column for both gasolines, and 12.5 pL on-column for diesel. Much of the prior work in fire debris analysis referred to an estimated sensitivity of "0.1-0.5 µL" of gasoline [10,[12][13][14]19,37]. This is difficult to place in context as this may refer to the volume left at the scene, the volume captured during exhibit extraction, the volume diluted in a solvent for injection, the un-split volume, or the post-split volume delivered to the GC column.…”

“…Despite the need to limit sensitivity to forensically significant levels for exhibits selected through general fire investigation methods, there remains a long-acknowledged gap between the sensitivity of laboratory methods and accelerant detecting canines used to locate exhibits at the scene [12][13][14][15]. This persistent gap has led canine handlers to present the animal's indications at the scene to the court without the necessary laboratory confirmation, which has resulted in vigorous debate within the courts [15,16].…”

African elephants ( Loxodonta africana ) can detect TNT using olfaction: Implications for biosensor application

“…Additionally, with the benefits of biosensors becoming more widely recognized, many more applications are being realized, including in particular medical and ecological ones. Aside from the typical contraband (Adams and Johnson, 1994;Lorenzo et al, 2003) and forensic (Schoon, 1996;Tindall and Lothridge, 1995) detection work, dogs are now commonly being used in both a medical and biological setting, and can provide more reliable results than mechanical devices (Arner et al, 1986;Kurz et al, 1994;Lewis et al, 1997;Tindall and Lothridge, 1995). Canines now screen for cancers (Cornu et al, 2011;McCulloch et al, 2006;Sonoda et al, 2011;Willis et al, 2004), diabetes (Chen et al, 2000), and epilepsy (Brown and Strong, 2001;Strong et al, 1999).…”