that unconfirmed canine alerts are not reliable in the absence of laboratory confirmation, largely due to the fact the canines cannot meaningfully discriminate between background pyrolysis products [those created by the combustion] and accelerants.” Id. at 170, 928 A.2d 165; see also John D. DeHaan, Kirk’s Fire Investigation 543 (6th Ed.2006) (“without a specific verifiable identification of just what is present [by a lab], the investigator cannot decide the significance of such positive alerts”). Most courts that have considered the issue of uncorroborated canine accelerant alerts have found them to be novel scientific evidence, not generally accepted in the scientific community of arson investigators. See Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. Co. v. Foote, 341 Ark. 105, 14 S.W.3d 512 (2000) (<HOLDING>); Carr v. State, 267 Ga. 701, 482 S.E.2d 314
holding that scientific evidence must satisfy the pertinent delaware rules of evidence concerning admission of scientific testimony or evidence ie dre 401 402 403 702 and 703 and be relevant and reliable recognizing that training and technique for canine accelerant detection is accepted by arson investigation community holding that more than notice to a defendant is required holding that expert opinion based on scientific technique is inadmissible unless technique is generally accepted as reliable in relevant scientific community holding that testimony that accelerant detection canine is more reliable than laboratory equipment is without scientific validity