Of man, detection dogs and the law

In the Lang'ata school land saga it was, rightly or wrongly, alleged that police dogs were used for crowd control. The matter of police dogs is governed by the 21-page Chapter 12 of the Police Standing Orders and there are other varied laws that highlight the legal relationship of man and his best friend.

Historically, as early as the 14th century, dogs were being used in France to guard dock installations. In 1888, the London Metropolitan Police Force used bloodhounds to track suspects by scent as part of the infamous investigations into the Jack the Ripper murders.

In 1899, dogs were trained for police work in Belgium. Many nations followed suit and dogs are now regarded as the most important means of fighting organised crime.

Due to their unique olfactory abilities and a picky sense of smell which is said to be at least 50 times more sensitive than that of humans, police dogs play a phenomenal role in the detection and investigation of crime. They sniff out drugs, bombs and other illegal materials. Dogs are used in earthquake and mountain rescues.

Our Police Standing Orders prohibit the use of police dogs for crowd control. The rationale for this is that animals thus employed tend to become over-excited and unreliable. The aggressive attitude they project in such circumstances is deplored by law-abiding people who consequently dismiss the police dogs as being ferocious and ill-disciplined.

There is a Police Dog Unit which is responsible for the training of dog trainers and handlers, and the breeding, training and care of police dogs.

There are hundreds of dog breeds and those approved for police duties in Kenya include the Alsatian, which is used for general prevention and detection purposes, the Border Collie and the Belgian Malenois, both used for drugs detection, the Labrador used for sniffing drugs and explosives, and the Sussex Spaniel used for detection of explosives and narcotic drugs.

Evidence of tracking an accused with a police dog is admissible in court. This means that where a dog has taken scent at the scene of crime and has followed a trail that has led to a specific person, evidence of this may be given.

It has been found in practice, however, that courts are reluctant to convict an accused person on the sole evidence of the dog's tracking. It is better if this can be supported by other evidence, such as fingerprints or the possession of stolen property.

Any admissible evidence disclosed as a result of the use of dogs must be given by the dog handler concerned. Dog trainers may be called to give evidence as to how police dogs are trained in patrol work and tracking if the court feels this is necessary.

Courts have held that a trained detection dog's alert as to the presence of illegal substances in a place is generally sufficient cause for police officers to search the place.

 

In 2013, for instance, the US Supreme Court ruled that an alert to the police from a dog as to the smell of drugs in a vehicle gave the police reasonable cause that justified the search of the said vehicle.

Dogs also help in effecting arrests. Being swifter than most humans, police dogs assist their human counterparts in tracking down criminals, by pursuing and immobilising the fleeing criminal until police officers arrive to hand-cuff him.

Dogs have gone as far as becoming court witnesses. In 2008, a dog named Scooby was called to the witness box in a French court in a murder case in which the dog's owner had been found hanging from the ceiling of her flat in Paris.

The mongrel had been in the flat at the time of its owner's death and was therefore an eye witness to the murder.

It was summoned to help the trial court identify murderer. At the hearing of its evidence, it is said to have 'barked furiously' from the witness box when a suspect in the case was presented. The court praised the dog for its exemplary behaviour and invaluable assistance.

In civil law, a dog can expose its owner to legal liability to persons injured by it. A dog owner is, however, shielded from liability in respect of the dog's first victim. A dog is allowed one free bite after which it exposes its owner to liability.

The gist of liability, and the wrongdoing of the owner in such a case, is the keeping of the dog after knowledge of its mischievous character. This gives rise to an action in "scienter". A dog, by nature, is not a dangerous animal, and the owner is only be liable to the victim of his dog if he actually knew that the dog was dangerous and decided to keep it nevertheless.

He can only know that the dog is dangerous if it attacks someone or if it demonstrates a propensity to attack. Apart from an action in scienter, a dog owner can be sued in contract, trespass, negligence or nuisance.

For instance, if you by contract undertake a duty of care in respect of the person or property of another, you may be liable to him for consequential damage caused through the instrumentality of your dog.

Dogs barking so incessantly that neighbours suffer sleepless nights may expose the owner to an action in nuisance.

In addition, in communities governed by homeowner associations, the same may violate the association's agreement, thus exposing the owner to injunctions.

Dogs have even been credited for tracing many medical conditions such as cancer and in some countries given national awards for bravery.

Perhaps it is time to put dogs to better use than crowd control!