Harass II

Harass II, also reported as Harrass 2, was a tracking dog associated with John Melvin Preston, a Pennsylvania state trooper, dog handler, and later criminal-case witness. The dog became known through Preston's testimony in criminal proceedings in the United States during the early 1980s, particularly in Florida and other jurisdictions. Preston presented Harass II as an unusually capable forensic-tracking animal, claiming that it could identify and follow human scent long after a person had crossed an area, across heavily trafficked surfaces, after severe weather, and even underwater. These claims were far beyond what professional tracking-dog specialists considered plausible. The dog's reputation was therefore inseparable from Preston's methods and representations. A United States Postal Service investigation in 1983 concluded that Preston had directed Harass II toward results selected in advance by investigators, allegedly seeking information about the desired location before beginning a demonstration. During a 1984 proceeding in Brevard County, Florida, Judge Gilbert Goshorn tested the team with a fresher, shorter, and materially simpler scent trail than those described in Preston's courtroom accounts. Harass II did not complete the test successfully. When Goshorn offered a further opportunity the following day, Preston left the area and did not return to testify in Brevard County. Preston's evidence was subsequently repudiated by the Kings County District Attorney in New York and criticized by the Arizona Supreme Court, which characterized Preston as a charlatan. He also gave false testimony on at least two occasions about his certification as a tracking expert. Although Preston was never criminally prosecuted for these matters, his testimony had already been used in numerous criminal cases. The record described in public reporting indicates that his evidence contributed to more than 100 convictions, while the Innocence Project of Florida estimated that as many as 60 people might have been convicted partly or entirely on the basis of his testimony. At least two men associated with convictions involving Preston were later released after DNA evidence contradicted the prosecution's case. Bill Dillon, who spent more than two decades in prison, was not told that Preston's testimony had been repudiated until 2006. The resulting controversy focused not only on the reliability of Harass II's alleged tracking abilities but also on prosecutorial oversight, the treatment of purported forensic experts, and the risks of admitting unvalidated animal-scent evidence in court. Harass II is consequently remembered less as a conventional commercial brand than as the named police dog at the center of a major dispute over forensic dog evidence. The available reference material does not establish the dog's breed, acquisition date, death date, training organization, or complete case history. It also does not establish that Harass II itself was responsible for misconduct independently of Preston; the allegations primarily concern the handler's claims, procedures, and testimony.

Harass II entered the public record through the work of John Melvin Preston, who used the dog in criminal investigations and appeared as a prosecution witness in cases across the United States during the early 1980s. Preston claimed that the animal possessed extraordinary scent-tracking abilities. His descriptions included locating human traces months or years after passage, tracking across busy streets, following scent after hurricanes, and detecting scent underwater. Tracking specialists regarded such capabilities as impossible or inconsistent with accepted canine-forensics practice. The relationship between the dog and handler became controversial because the alleged results were often presented in legal proceedings as expert evidence. Reports stated that Harass II sometimes urinated on evidence while Preston described the animal as working. More significantly, a 1983 Postal Service investigation concluded that Preston obtained information about the result investigators wanted and then guided the dog toward it. This suggested that the apparent tracking performance could have reflected handler cueing or prior knowledge rather than independent scent discrimination. A decisive challenge occurred in Brevard County, Florida, in 1984. Judge Gilbert Goshorn arranged a practical test using a scent trail that was substantially shorter, fresher, and less demanding than trails Preston had claimed Harass II could follow. The dog failed the test. Goshorn offered Preston another attempt on the following day, but Preston left town and did not return to provide further testimony in the county. In a later affidavit, Goshorn stated that he believed Preston could have produced his reported results only by learning information about cases in advance and directing the dog to the suspect or evidence favored by investigators. The credibility of Preston's testimony was also rejected or condemned by legal authorities. The Kings County District Attorney in New York repudiated his evidence, and the Arizona Supreme Court described him as a charlatan. Preston falsely testified at least twice about his certification as a tracking expert, although he was never charged with a crime for those representations. The consequences extended beyond the reputation of one handler and one dog. Preston testified in dozens of Florida criminal trials, and public accounts attribute more than 100 convictions to his evidence. The Innocence Project of Florida estimated that up to 60 people may have been convicted partly or solely on his testimony. At least two men were eventually freed after DNA evidence contradicted the cases against them, and Bill Dillon spent over 20 years in prison before his exoneration. Dillon reportedly did not learn that Preston's testimony had been repudiated until 2006. The aftermath exposed weaknesses in the review of forensic evidence. Florida authorities initially said they could not determine every case in which Preston had testified. Officials later announced that cases would be re-reviewed, although a 2004 review had already taken place without identifying Dillon's case as requiring action. In 2009, the chief judge of Florida's 18th Judicial Circuit declined to request a grand-jury investigation of the state attorney's office's hiring of Preston. The available sources provide no reliable information about Harass II's breed, training history, later life, death, or the full list of cases in which the dog was used. The historical significance of Harass II therefore lies primarily in its role in the controversy over unvalidated scent-tracking claims and the use of handler testimony in criminal courts.

• 2009

  Florida oversight dispute continued

  [1]John Preston (dog handler)en.wikipedia.org

  A Florida chief judge declined to call a grand jury to investigate the state attorney's office's use of Preston as a witness.

• 2006

  Dillon case brought renewed attention

  [1]John Preston (dog handler)en.wikipedia.org

  Bill Dillon's DNA-based release highlighted the continuing consequences of convictions involving Preston's repudiated testimony.

• 1984

  Brevard County test exposed a performance failure

  [1]John Preston (dog handler)en.wikipedia.org

  Harass II failed a comparatively simple scent-tracking test conducted during a Brevard County proceeding; Preston subsequently left and did not return for another appearance there.

• 1983

  Federal investigation challenged the tracking demonstrations

  [1]John Preston (dog handler)en.wikipedia.org

  A United States Postal Service investigation reported that Preston obtained the desired investigative result before using Harass II and then led the dog toward it.

A purportedly exceptional forensic tracking dog whose courtroom use became associated with alleged handler manipulation and the later repudiation of scent evidence.

• 2006

  DNA exonerations exposed possible wrongful convictions

  DNA-based releases, including Bill Dillon's, demonstrated that cases relying on Preston's testimony could produce wrongful convictions and prompted renewed scrutiny of Harass II-related evidence.

  Source

• 1984

  Failed Brevard County tracking demonstration

  Harass II failed a judge's controlled tracking test, while Preston did not remain for a second opportunity. The episode became a central challenge to the credibility of his courtroom claims.

  Source

• 1983

  Alleged handler cueing and manufactured tracking results

  A Postal Service investigation alleged that Preston knew the result sought by investigators and guided Harass II toward it, calling into question the independence of the dog's tracking performance.

  Source

Read more

• 2009

  Grand-jury investigation was declinedOther

  Background

  The use of Preston as a prosecution witness and the handling of cases involving his evidence had generated calls for institutional accountability.

  Action taken

  J. Preston Silvernail, chief judge of Florida's 18th Judicial Circuit, declined to call a grand jury to investigate the state attorney's office.

  Aftermath

  The decision left the controversy focused on case review, exoneration, and evidentiary oversight rather than a new criminal investigation.

  Source

• 2004

  Florida authorities reviewed Preston-related casesOther

  Background

  Questions arose about how many prosecutions had relied on Preston and Harass II after his qualifications and methods were challenged.

  Action taken

  A review of cases was conducted, but it did not flag Bill Dillon's case before his later DNA-based release.

  Aftermath

  The review became part of broader criticism of Florida's failure to identify and notify every defendant affected by the repudiated testimony.

  Source

1. 1John Preston (dog handler)en.wikipedia.org