Bloodhound

Evidence from the tracking of a prisoner by bloodhounds is not permissible until it is shown that they were reliable and accurate; State v. Adams, 85 Kan. 435, 116 Pac. 608, 35 L. R. A. (N. S.) 870; State v. Dickerson, 77 Ohio St. 34, 82 N. E. 9G9, 122 Am. St. Rep. 479, 11 Ann. Cas. 1181; other cases express in various ways the foundation that must be laid; Richardson v. State, 145 Ala. 46, 41 South. 82, 8 Ann. Cas. 10S; Parker v. State, 46 Tex. Cr. R. 461, 80 S. W. 1008, 108 Am. St. Rep. 1021, 3 Ann. Cas. 893; in Brott v. State, 70 Neb. 395, 97 N. W. 593, 63 L. R. A. 789, such evidence is held dangerous and incompetent. Such dogs are remarkable for their sense of smell and ability to follow a scent or track a human being; to permit evidence that a hound has tracked an alleged criminal, it must be shown that it had been trained in that work; Pedigo v. Com., 103 Ky. 41, 44 S. W. 143, 42 L. R. A. 432, 82 Am. St. Rep. 566.