Discuss the following:
Arson dogs are useful tools for finding accelerants in locations where human investigators cannot. Some believe that arson dogs and their indication of possible accelerant residue should not be used as evidence in court.
Do you think arson dogs come up with better results than a chemical sniffer? Why or why not? Provide evidence to support your opinion.
Argue your opinion for preventing arson dog findings to be entered into court.
The body of your post should be at least 500 words in length. Support your claims with examples from this week's required material(s) and/or other scholarly resources, and properly cite any references.