1. Texas – Parker v. State 80 S.W. 1008 (1904). Ohio – State v. Dickerson, 82N.EW. 969 (1907).
2. Alaska – Wilkie v. State, 715 P12d 1199 (Alaska App. 1986), Idaho – State v. Streeper, 747 P. 2d 71 (Idaho 1987).
3. Inter alia: in Illinois (People v. Wolf, 165N.E. 619, 1929), Indiana (Ruse v. State, 115N.E. 778, 1917), Nebraska (Brott v. State, 97N.W. 593, 1903), Iowa (State v. Grba, 194N.W. 250, 1923) and partially in Montana (State v. Storm, 238 P. 2d 1161, 1952), where tracking evidence is accepted, however evidential value of such measure is not acknowledged in relation to a suspect.
4. See also: Ramos v. Florida 496 Fo 2d 121, 11 FLW 442, where court recognised that the evidence has to be proven in a fair and objective manner, and also that a dog must be adequately trained and – according to experience – considered reliable while conducting examinations. Similar reservation to the latter aspect was expressed by Arizona court: State v. Roscoe 145 Ariz. 212, 700 P.2d 1312.
5. Scent identification line-ups using trained dogs in the Netherlands;Schoon;Problems Forensic Sci.,2001