Picked From a Lineup, on a Whiff of Evidence

NY Times:

Picked From a Lineup, on a Whiff of Evidence

HOUSTON — A dog’s sniff helped put Curvis Bickham in jail for eight months. Now that the case against him has been dropped, he wants to tell the world that the investigative technique that justified his arrest smells to high heaven.
The police told Mr. Bickham they had tied him to a triple homicide through a dog-scent lineup, in which dogs choose a suspect’s smell out of a group. The dogs are exposed to the scent from items found at crime scene, and are then walked by a series of containers with samples swabbed from a suspect and from others not involved in the crime. If the dog finds a can with a matching scent, it signals — stiffening, barking or giving some other alert its handler recognizes.

The handler, Deputy Keith A. Pikett of the Fort Bend County, Tex., Sheriff’s Department, is “a charlatan,” said Rex Easley, a lawyer in Victoria, Tex., who represents a man falsely accused by the police of murdering a neighbor. Deputy Pikett, the lawyer said, “devised an unreliable dog trick to justify local police agencies’ suspicions” for producing search warrants and arrests.
Deputy Pikett, who declined to be interviewed, works in the town of Richmond, southwest of Houston, but he has served as a busy consultant to law enforcement agencies around the state, using his home-trained bloodhounds — he has given them names that include Columbo, Quincy and Clue — to sniff out crime. A native of Buffalo, N.Y., he has by his own estimate in court testimony performed thousands of scent lineups since the 1990s. His lawyer said the techniques were effective.

In several of the cases that were based on Deputy Pikett’s dogs, however, the scent lineups appear to have provided the primary evidence, even when contradictory evidence was readily available. Mr. Bickham spent eight months in jail after being identified in a scent lineup by Deputy Pikett’s dogs, until another man confessed to the killings. In an interview, Mr. Bickham scoffed at the accusation that he had taken part in three murders, noting that he has been hobbled by bone spurs and diabetes and is partially blind.

I absolutely can not believe that anyone could be sent to prison on such “evidence”.

Why don’t we try this: when an innocent person is convicted the cops and prosecutors responsible go to prison for the same length of time he was in.

I suppose YOU will volunteer to be a cop when these rules are enacted? For sure, nobody else with half a brain will…

It also isn’t clear to me from the article what the dog sniffs were used for. If they were used to justify search warrants which THEN found evidence linking the criminal to the crime, I see no issue. Cops need to be able to find evidence and search warrants SHOULD have a much lower threshold than trial evidence.

Did I miss where a jury trial heard dog evidence and convicted? These days it’s awfully easy to spend that much time in jail awaiting trial if you have no ability to post bail.

The real issue here might not be dog sniffing evidence, but the ridiculous time that poor people sometimes have to spend in jail WAITING for their fair trial.

“Our estimate right now is we’ve got 15 to 20 people who are in prison right now based on ** virtually nothing but Pikett’s testimony,”** he said. “That’s a big problem.”

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.