What was the difference between the first and the second sniff?
In the two set ups the first and the second sniff, the dog is found to have falsely responded to narcotics. Occasionally the difference between the two set ups is brought about by the ingredients for making methamphetamine which was noted.
What was the significance of the residual-odors?
The residual odors are of significance since it pointed out the dog’s response which could help in the case. Aldo had been trained in a way that he could be able to sniff things (sniff test).The dog was able to detect the presence of pseudoephedrine and components of making methamphetamine. Harris lawyer disapprove Aldo’s training, he was not satisfied with the quality, he rather focused on Aldo’s authorization and output in the field.
Three reasons why according to Matheson a dog that had been properly trained may nonetheless provide false positive concerning presence of a controlled substance?
According to Matheson, good performance of a dog in narcotics authorization and training provide reason to accept dog sniffing results. Certification of a dog especially after testing his reliability in a restrictive setting in a known organization provide acceptance of using trained dog. They also believe that even without formal certification its services are acceptable provided the dog has completed training program.
What was the rationale of Harris dissent advances for rejecting the rule of law announced by Harris majority?
The rejection of rule of law announced by the Harris majority was as a result of its inflexibility evidential need.
What is the issue the Harris court believes to be central to the case?
The Harris court believes that there should be evidence of the dog’s performance history.
State in a single sentence the rule of law announced in Harris?
The need for the state to provide comprehensive evidence (set of records) to attain prove of dogs reliability was the rule of law announced by Harris court.
Distinguish between false alerts and unverified alerts?
Unverified alerts are seen in a situation where the dog detects a car in which no drugs were noted as a result of its location (too well hidden). False alerts on the other hand are the provision of evidence of the dog’s training and its excellent performance in finding drugs yet the certification is obsolete.