
Kelly Test Requirements and Dog Scent Trailing Evidence
Foundational Requirements for Dog Scent Trailing Evidence
(1) Dog scent trail evidence is admissible without the need to meet the foundational and reliability requirements as described in People v. Kelly (i.e., the “Kelly/Frye test”). (2) Dog scent trailing evidence is admissible so long as a proper foundation is laid concerning the dog handler’s expertise, the present ability of the dog in issue to trail a human, and some corroboration that the person being trailed had in fact been at the location in issue.
Defendant Scott Lee Peterson lived with his wife, Laci, in Modesto, California. Laci worked as a substitute teacher while defendant ran a startup fertilizer company out of a leased warehouse. After a few years in Modesto, Laci became pregnant with their first child who they named “Conner,” with a due-date in February, 2003. On the day before Christmas, 2002, neighbors found the Petersons’ dog with his leash attached wandering around the neighborhood. With neither defendant nor Laci home, the neighbors merely put the dog in the Petersons’ backyard. Defendant came home at about 4:30 p.m. that afternoon, washed his clothes, and ate some pizza. He then called Laci’s mother to see if she had seen Laci that day, referring to his wife as “missing.” With the police eventually being called, it was determined that there were no signs of forced entry at the Peterson house and Laci’s purse was still there. Defendant suggested that maybe she had been accosted while walking the dog. He also claimed that he had gone fishing that day in San Francisco Bay despite the cool, drizzly weather. Defendant, however, was immediately a suspect, giving non-committal and inconsistent answers to questions. He also showed little concern that Laci was missing. When asked, defendant claimed that there were no current problems in his ....