# Casey Anthony hearing



## ladylaw203 (May 18, 2001)

Scent detector handlers especially HRD dog handlers need to watch this video of the deputy testifying. For those civilians that have never had this pleasure,welcome to my world. :crazy: this is why I teach courtroom testimony in my seminars and nag,nag,nag


this is just one part. go to you tube and watch it all. the link did not work right


----------



## Dainerra (Nov 14, 2003)

which part of the 8 is it in? just to narrow it down a bit - 8 sections at 11mins a piece he could be anywhere


----------



## Jax08 (Feb 13, 2009)

I"m not getting any sound


----------



## ladylaw203 (May 18, 2001)

If the link takes you to the proper place,there should be five clips of the officer testifying. you can fastforward through the paper fumbling and such. the whole testimony is relevant.


----------



## ladylaw203 (May 18, 2001)

YouTube - CMA Hearing 03/24/11


try this. click on the clips where you see the deputy sitting on the stand


----------



## Jax08 (Feb 13, 2009)

oh goodness..is it just me because I don't know anything or does the deputy seem to be stumbling through this testimony?


----------



## ladylaw203 (May 18, 2001)

Trust me, he is in pain. This is a high profile case with TV cameras rolling and live streaming video. The "air" and dog evidence is pretty crucial.
The witness stand is a lonely place. I have been a cop 32years and it is STILL not a comfortable place depending on what tactic the defense attorney us using


----------



## Jax08 (Feb 13, 2009)

Is the attorney asking questions that are out of the ordinary? It seems the first thing that would be asked is when, and how, the dog was certified? It doesn't seem to me like the deputy understands the questions or is the lawyer twisting the questions to make them hard to answer?

I hope they don't lose the evidence.


----------



## Samba (Apr 23, 2001)

Is it proper to send another dog into an area after another dog has already searched that area?


----------



## NancyJ (Jun 15, 2003)

Definitely going to listen to this one when I have the right time.

You know I would like an answer on that question ...... it is not uncommon for 2nd dog conformations but I have seen that done on water (to confirm pinpointing), to follow up on an area where the handler wanted a 2nd opinion, and shallow graves where you were NOT in a probable cause situation............and that second dog and handler were run completely blind.


----------



## DFrost (Oct 29, 2006)

I have a problem with using a second dog in probable cause situations. If anyone would want to start a separate thread on that subject, I'd give my objections. Secondly, watching that officer testify is painful. I'm not going to comment on it a lot because you never know who is reading an open forum. My only comment would be; shame to those that don't believe in document, document, document. Any testimony related to a dog's actions should be directed at the training records.

DFrost


----------



## ladylaw203 (May 18, 2001)

I agree. His report is on the web. A three liner 

I am not keen on confirmation dogs either. How many times have we seen dogs trail the dog before him etc etc. I work on that in maintenance training but dogs will be dogs......


----------



## NancyJ (Jun 15, 2003)

I agree on those situations where you are securing a warrant based on a dogs indication it better be rock solid. (well as solid as it can be - not one dog is 100%) and based on One dog. And training records and certifications need to be in order.

Any other place you are just providing "extra information" and we always verify that the police have the right permissions to search a given area by asking them and explaining the ONLY time we can trespass without permission is during a live person search as that is considered an emergency but even so you DO due diligence with trying to talk with the property owner.

I honestly DO think it helps on drownings where you have to say WHERE the body is relative to the indication......and on open land where you may have a dog showing behavior consistent with human remains out in the woods but not pinpointing. Sometimes it is a matter of waiting for better conditions and you want a second dog to run the area blind so that the handler is not an influencing factor.


----------



## NancyJ (Jun 15, 2003)

I have not gotten past the 3 videos on training logs and the discussions on blind training. Ow. Double ow. And only one cert one time? But guess technically, there is no law requiring a dog certify annually.


----------



## ladylaw203 (May 18, 2001)

I agree on those situations where you are securing a warrant based on a dogs indication it better be rock solid. (well as solid as it can be - not one dog is 100%) and based on One dog. And training records and certifications need to be in order.
**************************************************


The final trained response of a cadaver dog CANNOT be used as probable cause. Only reasonable suspicion. They already had the car impounded. No probable cause necessary


No. No laws to require an outside cert. Most large departments require it. I conducted in house evals when I was training director of k9 at my agency BUT the teams had to get outside certs. In house has built in conflict of interest 

Neither he nor the defense knew what a blind and double blind is. Blind means the handler does not know where the aid is. Double blind means handler and evaluator does not know. Double blinds are silly with dogs. Great for medicinal trials but no place in dog training..........


----------



## NancyJ (Jun 15, 2003)

Thanks for the clarification on blind and double blind - I had NEVER heard the terminology used in reference to dog training though have in reference to clinical trials. ... 


Actually I have had my husband set problems where all he does is set them with a GPS and does not go out with me. 
There I uncover the hides for confirmation (or if I can't see use the GPS to verify), and it helps me because while you police are probably good at playing stone-face, many civilians are not (especially if you are married to them) - but we usually set blinds at team training for each other so we rotate through 2 blind areas and 1 known area on any given day. (there the teammate who set the problem accompanies for confirmation)--and, like the real thing, with my husband's hides the dog does not get rewarded for the find.

My training logs have checkbox for Known to handler/unknown to handler and if set by another whe set them.

This is a case where the warrant was secured after the car was sniffed and the handler is named in the probable cause statement so I am a bit confused. And I don't really want to go into it because (a) you know this will wind up in court and (b) I was NOT present so what you have is what was released in the media.

Zahra search warrants (Group 2) - WBTV 3 News, Weather, Sports, and Traffic for Charlotte, NC-

It is in group 2.


----------



## GSDElsa (Jul 22, 2009)

I didn't watch the whole thing. Unfortunately, however, I think many PD's are weak on preparing their officers for court--period, yet alone a case that involves testimony such as this. No reason to overcomplicate or try to have fight of the wills to basic attorney questions. Not sure why so many people have problems with this, but agreat way to calm the nerves is to have a conversation with the jury, not the defense attorney. They, after all, are the ones you're telling this all to....and the ones that appreciate not be ignored.


----------



## NancyJ (Jun 15, 2003)

I imagine it is a lot easier to sit in the peanut gallery than on the witness stand.


----------



## GSDElsa (Jul 22, 2009)

Luckily I do the latter all the time


----------



## NancyJ (Jun 15, 2003)

Interesting. I have only been on a witness stand once (not SAR related) and hated the questions that led to more enlightening answers that you could not answer that way

but I know from dealing with auditors at work it is "just the facts" nothing more nothing less but I guess in court bring out the "but" part of "yes, but" is the job of the cross examiner but I don't have a lot of faith in lawyers either to catch that!

So what do you do?


----------



## ladylaw203 (May 18, 2001)

This is a case where the warrant was secured after the car was sniffed and the handler is named in the probable cause statement so I am a bit confused. And I don't really want to go into it because (a) you know this will wind up in court and (b) I was NOT present so what you have is what was released in the media.
***************************
Again, the cadaver dog is reasonable suspicion. When one writes up an affadavit for a search warrant,there are several things addressed. The cadaver dog is but ONE. Trust me

The sniff of a NARCOTIC dog on a vehicle CAN be probable cause for warrantless search because the vehicle is mobile. As long as PROBABLE cause for the stop is good, the sniff on the vehicle is good. You will just have to trust me on this


----------



## ladylaw203 (May 18, 2001)

Not sure why so many people have problems with this, but agreat way to calm the nerves is to have a conversation with the jury, not the defense attorney. They, after all, are the ones you're telling this all to....and the ones that appreciate not be ignored




I always address the jury. No jury in this clip. this was a hearing with regard to allowing certain evidence in


----------



## ladylaw203 (May 18, 2001)

Below is from Terry Fleck's website. 



*Contraband Substance Detector Dogs: *
*The narcotic dog and explosive dog.* 
The Federal and State case law states that when one of these dogs alert or locate contraband, the dog's alert equals and gives the peace officer probable cause. 
Once the peace officer has the dog alert, which equals probable cause, now the peace officer may apply for a search warrant, search without a warrant, based upon one of the exceptions to the search warrant requirement, or arrest. 
However, in order for the alert from a contraband dog to equal probable cause, the dog must be trained, certified and reliable. 
*Trained, certified and reliable: *
These three legality principles, trained, certified and reliable, apply to both types of dogs. If this case goes to court, the defense will attack these three areas. SAR dogs have already been held to these principles in court.
*Cadaver Dogs*: 
The question that remains is the cadaver or human remains dog. Is this dog a human scent dog or a contraband substance dog? 
There is no Federal or State case law, that I’m aware of, that addresses an alert from a cadaver or human remains dog as probable cause to obtain a search warrant, search or arrest. 
Therefore, if the cadaver or human remains dog is placed in the contraband substance dog group, that alert would stand alone. If the cadaver or human remains dog is placed in the human scent dog group, that alert would have to be corroborated by other evidence.
Based upon review of the case law below, an alert from a cadaver dog is only reasonable suspicion. The dog alert must be corroborated by other evidence.


----------



## NancyJ (Jun 15, 2003)

Thanks for the clarification. Ok the dog was used, among many other things, to add to the argument to secure a warrant.

The narc dog can search the car without a warrant because it has established probable cause

Hopfully you will tell me if I don't "get it" for the distinction now.


----------



## ladylaw203 (May 18, 2001)

Basically. Under normal conditions one is always better with a search warrant. Highway drug interdiction units are dealing with vehicles on the interstate that are mobile. Once we have probable cause for the stop, if the officer runs the dog and the dog alerts,a search can be conducted. A motorist can only be held for a "reasonable" length of time hence, a search is allowed without first obtaining a warrant. Other things involved but that is it in a nutshell


----------



## NancyJ (Jun 15, 2003)

eeeek SWGDOG defines a double blind assessment for certification testing. Why the heck did they do that. ... it is there is approved SC2 and SC8 and it is where neither the handler nor evaluator knows where the aid is placed.


----------



## NancyJ (Jun 15, 2003)

Got through it all. 

THen decided to run back and look at SWGDOG and found something else strange

When you look at the requirments for TESTING 
Discipline - Confirmed alert rate-False Alert Rate

and compare:

Accelerants:-90%-10%
Explosives -90%-10%
Narcotics -90%-10%
Human Remains - 90%-0%

IT seems interesting they are holding the cadaver dogs up to a higher certification standard than the others by not allowing *any* false indications. Of course that is a test. If there are no false indications in your training records I would say you are not training hard enough. Of course there should not be many and you usually learn to even read those based on the lack of body language before the indication......

NAPWDA requires 11 of 12 aids (or allows 12 of 12 with one false alert)
IPWDA requres 100% aids no false alert - and the handler does not know until the end how may aids were in each area or which one was the negative area.....
NNDDA? USPCA?

So how do the certifying agencies (voluntary unless mandated by an organization) look at the SWGDOG guidelines? (which are also voluntary, no?)


----------



## GSDElsa (Jul 22, 2009)

ladylaw203 said:


> I always address the jury. No jury in this clip. this was a hearing with regard to allowing certain evidence in


Ah, that didn't click in my head. I just turned the clips on and listened at work here and there.

That's probably one of the most in-depth hearings I've ever heard of...probably why I didn't even think about it.


----------



## ladylaw203 (May 18, 2001)

jocoyn said:


> Got through it all.
> 
> THen decided to run back and look at SWGDOG and found something else strange
> 
> ?)


 
Dont get me started on SWGDOG. Meaningless waste of OUR tax dollars. Trust me. They started out wanting to be THE certifying body in the US for all. They finally,( many thousands of dollars later) realized they were not going to kick all of the other orgs to the curb so NOW they say we just offer guidelines... Please. this is nothing but a waste of our money. Very silly
they did finally get some folks on the thing that actually have dogs....
It is a meaningless body. who knows why the defense attorney brought that up. probably googled it...........


We pay little attention to SWGDOG. The major orgs were in existence long before they came up with this silly idea. I wrote the standards for NNDDA on cadaver and the first draft of SWGDOG's standards were hysterical. They carry no weight


----------



## ladylaw203 (May 18, 2001)

as far as double blinds....
NO. that is what happens when you get academics on this thing. 
When the first draft of their standards came out, I darn near wrote them a thesis on the problems with it. They chunked them and started over. 
double blind is cool on clinical trials but stupid for dogs. sounds really cool though..


----------



## NancyJ (Jun 15, 2003)

I was just trying to figure out where the heck he got "double blind testing" from.
I think any effort to try to standardize is good but I have to admit......

Same thing with the cadaver dog handbook. It is a book. It is a fairly old book. Lot of good stuff in there but not an accepted standard of performance.


----------



## ladylaw203 (May 18, 2001)

I agree. Oh that double blind stuff came from the PHDs on that board. We all write standards and policy/procedure based on case law. What is acceptable yadda yadda. Unfortunately, we live in a world in which folks only take some concept seriously if some guy with a lot of letters behind the name says it is so. that is why SWGDOG comes up. I may be getting old.........hahaha
there is still much to learn about our dogs and this scent detection stuff.


----------



## Samba (Apr 23, 2001)

I am fur sure no PhD and no detection person either. What is the idea/problem with a double blind test?


----------



## ladylaw203 (May 18, 2001)

A double blind in the scent detector dog business means the handler NOR the evaluator knows where the training aid is. First of all,that is not how we certify dogs. I set up the cert and administer it. That is why I am there. If the evaluator does not know where the aid is,what the heck is he doing there??? proves nothing. sounds good. That stuff is used in clinical trials


As I am certifying the dog,I am watching the dog work,how he works,is the dog trailing the dog before him? is the dog trailing ME? Also, if I dont know where the aid is,what if the dog false alerts? I am NOT going to allow someone to reward their dog for a false. When they call it,we tell them no, a false do not reward your dog

Blinds should be set us for all we handlers. That means someone else sets it up and the handler does not know where the aid is. The helps the handler identify issues such as inadvertently cueing the dog etc etc.


----------



## ladylaw203 (May 18, 2001)

another court case. why the link says that I have no idea


Leaving Facebook... | Facebook


----------



## GSDElsa (Jul 22, 2009)

They probably brought up SWGDOG because the "SWG" groups are generally recognized as being the leaders in guidelines and policy recommendations in many avenues regarding law enforcement (especially that involving science).


----------



## NancyJ (Jun 15, 2003)

As i was cogitating about this too.....I have seen tests were a dog does something strange, then another dog does the same darned thing and then the evaluator runs his or her dog (knowing where the aid is and what *should* happen) and gets the same darned thing... that scent picture is constantly changing during the day and how it was when they set it up may not be how it was when tested. If we could see where the scent went we would not need the dogs.

Sometimes scent does screwy things. Actually that is what I have appreciated from the LE evaluations I have had over the civilian ones.

LE seems to realize when a scenario is the problem and not the dog wheras the civilain (I am thinking NASAR ahem) evaluator sometimes fails a team that should not have failed (eg frinds air scent dog found victim too fast......this was a dog with many many finds before they field tested the test on him) *or* they pass if they luck into it. (for example walk into the victim in the alloted time)

I don't see that with the LE. I see them watching and saying...does the dog know the target odor, how to work to source and offer its trained indication. Does the handler know how to field the dog and read the dog? How can you know that if you don't know where it is.

And any LE Master trainer I have tested under is NOT going to inadvertently cue me, no way. The last guy messed with our heads and left us sweating. I think they know how to push people.


----------



## NancyJ (Jun 15, 2003)

Wouldnt the AC test be fair? How you check a car for water leaks and a good way to find scent? ...........

You know, SWGDOG defines the double blind test but does not require it. they allow alternate testing. ..... and the bottom line is does ANY certifying agency USE it? That is what counts!!!! Did you certify?


----------



## ladylaw203 (May 18, 2001)

GSDElsa said:


> They probably brought up SWGDOG because the "SWG" groups are generally recognized as being the leaders in guidelines and policy recommendations in many avenues regarding law enforcement (especially that involving science).


No they really are not. Have been in existence for a short time. The largest police service dog orgs had their standards in place long before that group was formed. We have reps on it as well as the other orgs. They simple offer opinions nothing more Also our standards and policies are based in CASE law. Science is for the courtroom. The science part has to do with evidence


----------



## ladylaw203 (May 18, 2001)

jocoyn said:


> Wouldnt the AC test be fair? How you check a car for water leaks and a good way to find scent? ...........
> 
> You know, SWGDOG defines the double blind test but does not require it. they allow alternate testing. ..... and the bottom line is does ANY certifying agency USE it? That is what counts!!!! Did you certify?


 
SWGDOG does not certify anybody or anything. It is your tax dollars at work having a lot of meetings. Seriously. they do no harm but I have not seen anything to indicate much relevence so far.


----------



## GSDElsa (Jul 22, 2009)

ladylaw203 said:


> No they really are not. Have been in existence for a short time. The largest police service dog orgs had their standards in place long before that group was formed. We have reps on it as well as the other orgs. They simple offer opinions nothing more


I'm not talking about SWGDOG--I'm talking about the defense attorney's reason for possibly bringing it up...which is that most SWG groups are what I said. They are pretty much becoming THE "working group" for recommendations...ie SWGDAM, SWGDRUG, SWGGUN, etc. Defense attornies ask about them all the time, if people know about them, and if you and/or your organization follows their recommdations.


----------



## ladylaw203 (May 18, 2001)

GSDElsa said:


> I'm not talking about SWGDOG--I'm talking about the defense attorney's reason for possibly bringing it up...which is that most SWG groups are what I said. They are pretty much becoming THE "working group" for recommendations...ie SWGDAM, SWGDRUG, SWGGUN, etc. Defense attornies ask about them all the time, if people know about them, and if you and/or your organization follows their recommdations.


 
Not everyone is seeing them come up in court. 

Below is what their mission is:
In order to benefit local, state, federal and international law enforcement
agencies by improvements in the performance and overall reliability of
d detector dogs and their optimized combination with electronic detection​devices.


Now. They started out funded by the FBI. ALSO, funded by the FBI was Dr. Vass's research into VOCs produced by decomposing humans. ALSO Vass has the patent and possesses royalities from any potential sale of the sniffer thing ( which needs independent testing). Hmmmm. FBI holds the Database of the 474 VOCs hostage and wont allow its total release which of course means the research cannot be verified by independent means. sniffer thing is measuring the 30 VOCs unique to humans based on the database which of course cannot be verified. Do I think the database is right? probably. BUT BUT the financial interest in the whole thing has a built in conflict of interest

My whole point is that it all sounds great and is not harmful but not necessary and for the $$$$$$$$$$ of our tax dollars spent flying these folks around for meetings, I see it as a waste of money. Govt is good at that.......


----------



## GSDElsa (Jul 22, 2009)

I cant' speak for SWGDOG, but like it or not, most of the SWG groups are a necessarily evil brought on by poor practices and I imagine they are here to stay. 

I know in my field, they have been a blessing. Considering how much work they do with Daubert and Frye hearings they are worth their weight in gold yet alone the miniscule price to fly a dozen people around twice a year.


----------



## ladylaw203 (May 18, 2001)

what field are you in? Exactly how did they help?

The major police service dog orgs in the US are NNDDA(largest) NAPWDA,USPCA AND LETS. there are others but these are the largest. to my knowledge no standards have been changed because of this org. all of the above have representatives on it. 

It was started to be THE certifying entity in the US and they quickly found out that would not work. Now they are a think tank.

Standards with the orgs are NOT the problem. the problem is in the US it is not mandatory to certify a dog. THAT is the problem,

My only point is this. They have done no harm. The standards they have come up with from what I have seen, are nothing better than what many orgs already have. If they can help with weight of dog evidence. fine the electronic device part of the mission bothers me,because of the above post of mine. 
VAss was hammered in the hearing because of the lack of independent corroboration. We need that database and I dont want to see it trashed because of that


----------



## ladylaw203 (May 18, 2001)

http://www.facebook.com/l.php?u=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R-EfFxwQAkM&h=e65b3


This is the defense witness from April 1. Dr. Furton. I like this man. clips 13,14,15 talk about k9s, thresholds maintenance training. 
good stuff. I have been screaming about thresholds for years and he did research to prove it.


----------

