# court cases



## ladylaw203 (May 18, 2001)

http://www.scotusblog.com/2012/07/jardines-and-harris-made-simple/


----------



## Freddy (Apr 23, 2009)

2 comments:

1. Since it's a long technical read and you're in law enforcement, would you mind giving a summary of what this means?

2. An officer uses their eyes to spot contraband, weapons, etc inside vehicles without entering. How is a dog's nose any different?


----------



## DFrost (Oct 29, 2006)

Freddy said:


> 2 comments:
> 
> 1. Since it's a long technical read and you're in law enforcement, would you mind giving a summary of what this means?
> 
> 2. An officer uses their eyes to spot contraband, weapons, etc inside vehicles without entering. How is a dog's nose any different?


That article is written for the laymen. It is not full of technical jargon. If you are truly interested, anything I could say would be redundant to the existing article. It summarizes both arguments very well in an easy to read and understand format. 

DFrost


----------



## NancyJ (Jun 15, 2003)

I thought it was very nice and have that site bookmarked. We discussed these cases (and more) in a class on k9 case law at the police department and the summary is nce.

It is very nice being able to also click on the hyperlink with the case name and see all the various details. 

I do have a question though. I looked for some cases from the circuit courts like Melgar v Greene and they are not in the archives. Is this only for cases that get bumped up to the US Supreme Court? What exactly is a "Merits Case"..can't really find a good definition.

Ok is this correct? So they are cutting to the chase on a Merits Case and not considering the technicalities that get stuff thrown out? 
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/on+the+merits


----------



## martemchik (Nov 23, 2010)

It's actually pretty understandable why the courts ruled in those ways. There is still very little scientific evidence as to how exactly dogs detect odors. Then proving that a dog is 100% accurate on its detecting is just as tough. It's also pretty easy for a police department to just teach a dog to "alert" to something much simpler just to be able to get into vehicles and homes. Or just teach a dog to sit when the cop stops moving (most of us do that with our dogs anyways) and say "oh its an alert" please get out of your vehicle. I don't believe a police department would ever do this, and I'm sure they are all more ethical than this, but it does leave the door open for this kind of entrapment if you follow dogs (or any other method not proven by science) blindly.

I don't think this is a set back for police departments, its just what everyone always wants...protection under the constitution. I'm not one of those "protect my rights under all circumstances" people but this makes sense to me...a police officer shouldn't be able to use any tools that aren't easily acquired by the general public in order to gain evidence for a search of private property.


----------



## martemchik (Nov 23, 2010)

I've actually known about the heat-seaking court ruling for a while and I'm surprised that dogs didn't fall under that precedent in federal courts. I can see that changing very soon as dogs get better and better trained. Remember this doesn't affect those that are being searched with reasonable suspicion already, you just cant use the dog to gain that reasonable suspicion.


----------



## cliffson1 (Sep 2, 2006)

I have much mixed emotion about content. As everyone knows I am pro law enforcement for the use of dogs. Am still a consultant for two depts.
But let me tell a little story about an experience when I was in military. At that time I was handling a Narcotic Contraband Dog. We used to run missions on post where we might run 100 cars in two hour period at certain junctions. Now I had the top dog on the post in terms of "finds" and in terms of % of finds. My dog worked at plus 95% well into over a hundred finds.(I even got a commendation from Dept. of Army on his working results).
We were working an intersection one night and a van with long hairs came through the roadblock. Now we had unwritten orders that if a Van with long hairs, or Blacks, or a luxury car with young blacks in it, the dog WILL alert. Now I was the only African American in the Narcotic dog unit. So on this night a van with long hairs comes through the roadblock and I work Gustav on the vehicle. He did not alert. I purposely took him around the vehicle again....still no alert....so I told the driver he could go. The OIC went bonkers and asked me what I was doing....I told him the dog didn't alert.....he told me to put my dog up and I was through for the night.....I had just started....lol. Anyway, the next day I was called in and questioned about being a team player.....I told them I had the best d--- dog in the unit and if he didn't alert...then I saw no need to call one. Needless to say this didn't go over well, but they couldn't discipline me because they were wrong! 
So I really see both sides of this coin....lived it! Any of the handler with the passive sit alert dogs could make their dogs false alert anytime they wanted, so it is not improbable at all. I am one that believes if we as law enforcers cheat at enforcing the law then we are no better than the ones we seek.jmo


----------



## Smithie86 (Jan 9, 2001)

And the problem with "k9 trainers" that are not DEA certified (but infer) and train with pseudo. That adds to the problem.


----------



## ladylaw203 (May 18, 2001)

martemchik said:


> I've actually known about the heat-seaking court ruling for a while and I'm surprised that dogs didn't fall under that precedent in federal courts. I can see that changing very soon as dogs get better and better trained. Remember this doesn't affect those that are being searched with reasonable suspicion already, you just cant use the dog to gain that reasonable suspicion.



The problem we ran into with FLIR was that they considered it intrusive. A dog sniff is not intrusive under the right circumstances. Air is free doctrine 
Reasonable suspicion is not enough for a warrant less search. One needs probable cause. The reason we can conduct a warrantless search of a vehicle on a traffic stop based on the probable cause of a certified narc dog's alert is that the courts have said that the car is mobile and we can only detain for a reasonable amount of time. Reasonableness is somewhat relative but the time involved in obtaining a search
warrant would go far over that line.

Reliability with regard to actual use is a bit tough. Just because the dog alerted and nothing was found does not mean that the dog false alerted.. He could have alerted on residual or we just did not find it.reliability in maintenance training is a known. Not so on the street.

I can run my dog where I have a right to be ie public access. 

FYI the alert of a cadaver dog is reasonable suspicion only


----------



## DFrost (Oct 29, 2006)

jocoyn said:


> I thought it was very nice and have that site bookmarked. We discussed these cases (and more) in a class on k9 case law at the police department and the summary is nce.
> 
> It is very nice being able to also click on the hyperlink with the case name and see all the various details.
> 
> ...


Nancy, yes. When a case is decided on it's "merits", it's decided on the evidence of that case alone. 

DFrost


----------



## DFrost (Oct 29, 2006)

'Now we had unwritten orders that if a Van with long hairs, or Blacks, or a luxury car with young blacks in it, the dog WILL alert. Now I was the only African American in the Narcotic dog unit.'

That's wrong. I don't care if it's state, federal, county or military. It's wrong and it's illegal. If I knew one of my handlers caused the dog to respond, I would do everything in my power to ensure that person never worked a dog again. The end does not always justify the means. You served the same as I. Part of the oath we swore was to defend the constitution. Violating a persons rights with malice of forethought is about as wrong as you can get. 

DFrost


----------



## DFrost (Oct 29, 2006)

"There is still very little scientific evidence as to how exactly dogs detect odors. Then proving that a dog is 100% accurate on its detecting is just as tough."

I think there is a lot more scientific evidence about how dogs detect odor than you may know. Secondly, no where in any court decision is 100% required. A dog establishes probable cause, which is a lesser standard than absolute.

I will always state; you determine proficiency by documentation. If you keep accurate records they will speak for themselves. Too many handlers, with inadequate training, inadequate supervision and virtually no documentation cause the bad case law. I've been qualified as an expert and have have testified in both state and federal court. Well kept and complete training records stand tall combined with a professionally trained officer will prevail.

DFrost


----------



## cliffson1 (Sep 2, 2006)

DFrost, I agree with you 100%. Part of why I let the van go was because I hated that directive. It's kinda hard to protest in the military as opposed to in civilian life. Closed society, not way to get your complaint to outside, pretty much no way for outside to review your complaint...retaliation is certain to occur and nobody to intercede. This was seventies, in Ga. In a military police company. Just had to grin and bear it.
There's a big difference in a misread, and a purposeful false alert. We could make the passive sit dogs alert any time we wanted by jumping from the search command to the praise command for alerting while the dog was searching....seen it done too many times in training and on missions. 
I'm not saying this is something that is routinely used by LE....far from saying that.....but I do understand both sides.
Btw, on our missions the dog had to be certified at a certain level and maintain that level to constitute probable cause....we also has an officer from the Staff Judge Advocate office on site to authorize the search.


----------



## martemchik (Nov 23, 2010)

So what you are all saying is that it should be okay for a police officer on a normal traffic stop for just a regular traffic violation to be able to call in a K9 unit to sniff around a vehicle? And the probable cause to do that would be what? The guy looks like he could be high or selling drugs? Now...its fine if there are actual drugs in the car and the dog works. But what if I get detained for an extra 30 minutes while the K9 officer takes his time to get to the scene and then finds nothing? Or the dog false alerts and the officers find nothing? Oh well...that quick little speeding ticket just turns into a 2 hour stand off. And for what? Because I'm x, y, or z and at higher risk for having drugs?

Why not just have dogs walk around every single concert, or public gathering sniffing people then? I mean...air is free right and the people shouldn't expect any right to privacy when they're just shopping or enjoying some music.

I understand what you mean by having paperwork, but just that initial decision to either call in or use a K9 should always be questioned. Why isn't 100% required? No more beyond a reasonable doubt? I'm not trying to argue against law enforcement, but I'm sure things like Cliff's story still happen, I've watched K9 shows where I'm shocked at what some of the officers have said on camera. On one he just clearly said, "There was a robbery in the area, there are two black males in that vehicle, and the vehicle is leaving the area, so I pulled it over." Somehow...there was no description of the getaway vehicle and they were just pulling over any vehicle with black males inside of it that night. The two vehicles they showed on the show were a huge conversion van and then a small Chevy coupe...explain to me how witnesses couldn't get a good enough description of a vehicle that your range goes from the smallest car on the road to the biggest? What is the REAL reason those cars are getting pulled over?

It happens...there are people with less than stellar ethics and ones that don't trust anyone. The law can't just allow for those people to do whatever they please.


----------



## cliffson1 (Sep 2, 2006)

My example was of dogs used on a military base....big difference from the deployment in open society.


----------



## Smithie86 (Jan 9, 2001)

DFrost said:


> I will always state; you determine proficiency by documentation. If you keep accurate records they will speak for themselves. Too many handlers, with inadequate training, inadequate supervision and virtually no documentation cause the bad case law. I've been qualified as an expert and have have testified in both state and federal court. Well kept and complete training records stand tall combined with a professionally trained officer will prevail.DFrost



Worth repeating......


----------



## DFrost (Oct 29, 2006)

martemchik said:


> So what you are all saying is that it should be okay for a police officer on a normal traffic stop for just a regular traffic violation to be able to call in a K9 unit to sniff around a vehicle? And the probable cause to do that would be what? The guy looks like he could be high or selling drugs? Now...its fine if there are actual drugs in the car and the dog works. But what if I get detained for an extra 30 minutes while the K9 officer takes his time to get to the scene and then finds nothing? Or the dog false alerts and the officers find nothing? Oh well...that quick little speeding ticket just turns into a 2 hour stand off. And for what? Because I'm x, y, or z and at higher risk for having drugs?
> 
> Why not just have dogs walk around every single concert, or public gathering sniffing people then? I mean...air is free right and the people shouldn't expect any right to privacy when they're just shopping or enjoying some music.
> 
> ...


Probable cause isn't needed to have the dog sniff the exterior of a vehicle that has been stopped for an infraction.

Big difference between sniffing "people" and sniffing "vehicles". 

Not even doctors are held to a 100% standard. Probable cause is not 100% nor is it "beyond reasonable doubt". It's a legal definition not one made up by canine handlers or law enforcement. It means, basically, it's more likely than less likely or better than chance. If you knew you would win 8 out of 10 times you put a quarter in a slot machine would you continue to play that machine. You aren't guaranteed, it isn't 100%, but it is more likely that you will win than lose. 

Didn't see the show you are talking about, but I can tell you from personal experience the wide range of descriptions you get from "eye" witnesses is beyond belief. 

I don't know if there are situations such as Cliff described, still going on. I can say, they don't go on around me.

You say the initial decision to use the dog should be questioned. You tell, if I walk a dog around the outside of your vehicle if I've stopped you for a legitimate reason what, the intrusion is. As you clearly stated, the air outside your vehicle is free. People and gatherings are different and addressed by the court differently. Don't mix apples and oranges in a discussion. 

DFrost


----------



## NancyJ (Jun 15, 2003)

My understanding on this case was whether or not the front door was public and a sniff would be allowed since that is a public area. To my civilian mind, logically, it is unless the property is posted. 

I guess, perhaps, the deal here is that it is not routine to take dogs up to sniff the air around someones front porch even though it is at a traffic stop or in public places like airports, so perhaps they should have expected more privacy in the air around their home.....I don't know it is interesting.

----------------------

I can say that I certainly know black folks in the South who have been pulled over and harrassed for what they jokingly call a "DWB" (Driving while black). I think it depends on where you are but you get into rural parts of SC and it is like a third world country. If you don't believe it watch "corridor of shame" about schools in the I-95 corridor.

I did sit in a courtroom in the early 80s where the white frat boys who were drunk, trapped an officer in the middle of a parking lot and were doing donuts around him, got a boys will be boys lecure, and let off. The old black man in the next case who, , did have a suspended license on a DWI but was sober when he made a decision to drive his car to work when his ride did not show up (and if a no show - he would be fired - no unions around these parts) got called "boy" by the judge and got a heavy fine and his license revoked. 

My white grandfather was a "functioning" alcholic. My grandmother begged them to impound his car but they would just drive it to his house and park it and drop him off the next morning so he could get to work (they also brought him pot from drug raids, when he got cancer towards the end of his life-small town rural life to ease his suffering..)

That was in the early 80s but it opened my eyes. "DWB" easily in the past 2-3 years. I think there will always be police and judges who abuse the system and are bullies. All of my personal interactions with police, even when I have (oops) been caught speeding have been very polite and professional both ways.


----------



## martemchik (Nov 23, 2010)

DFrost said:


> You say the initial decision to use the dog should be questioned. You tell, if I walk a dog around the outside of your vehicle if I've stopped you for a legitimate reason what, the intrusion is. As you clearly stated, the air outside your vehicle is free. People and gatherings are different and addressed by the court differently. Don't mix apples and oranges in a discussion.


Great...now I have to look up precedent about what air is free. I guess the air around my home isn't free, the air around my vehicle is free, but the air around me as I walk in a public place isn't free? I'm not arguing right or wrong with you...I'm pointing out the confusion in all this. I'm also saying it makes no sense that a law enforcement officer can decide to use a tool...that isn't easily available to the public, that INTRUDES into a person's personal property, whenever they feel they want to.

And its great that things like what Cliff described don't happen under you, you're one of how many K9 officers (I'm assuming you are one). I also want you to know that I would have no problem with an officer using a dog, I think its a great tool...but the law just isn't clear on these issues, its very situational, which it shouldn't be.

Also...assume this...if the air around me in a public area isn't free for your dog to sniff...can I get out of my vehicle and follow your dog around and claim that it is invading my personal space? Or would a gun get drawn in .5 seconds and I'd get told to get back into my vehicle because that air isn't truly free.

The show I was talking about is called K9 Cops I believe, it follows a squad of K9s in the St. Paul/Minneapolis PD I believe. It's quite interesting, and shows how useful K9 officers are and all they do...it was just that one quote from the officer that was shocking. It made it sound like a robbery in the "area" allowed the cops free reign to pull over anything that moved out of the "area."


----------



## ladylaw203 (May 18, 2001)

martemchik said:


> Great...now I have to look up precedent about what air is free. I guess the air around my home isn't free, the air around my vehicle is free, but the air around me as I walk in a public place isn't free? I'm not arguing right or wrong with you...I'm pointing out the confusion in all this. I'm also saying it makes no sense that a law enforcement officer can decide to use a tool...that isn't easily available to the public, that INTRUDES into a person's personal property, whenever they feel they want to.
> 
> And its great that things like what Cliff described don't happen under you, you're one of how many K9 officers (I'm assuming you are one). I also want you to know that I would have no problem with an officer using a dog, I think its a great tool...but the law just isn't clear on these issues, its very situational, which it shouldn't be.
> 
> ...


 
You have limited exposure obviously. I am not going to explain highway drug interdiction 101 to you in a public venue, however. We dont waste our time running a dog on a bunch of traffic stops for fun. There are many things involved such as interviews and observations that precede the decision to run the dog. And NO there are not k9 cops running rampant forcing their dogs to false alert. Little thing called the in car video now thanks to racial profiling laws. Plenty of paid expert witnesses for the defense out there to view the video and testify that the dog was cued. Even an idiot can tell if the dog is really working, in odor, etc. We have to have probable cause for the stop to begin with.Also, ANY contact with the public MUST be documented hence the in car video. Stats are kept with regard to racial profiling too. You are wrong we have parameters and the law is clear. And there are clear laws with regard to when,how etc to deploy a scent detector dog. A dog sniff of a vehicle is not considered intrusive.


----------



## DFrost (Oct 29, 2006)

martemchik said:


> Great...now I have to look up precedent about what air is free. I guess the air around my home isn't free, the air around my vehicle is free, but the air around me as I walk in a public place isn't free? I'm not arguing right or wrong with you...I'm pointing out the confusion in all this. I'm also saying it makes no sense that a law enforcement officer can decide to use a tool...that isn't easily available to the public, that INTRUDES into a person's personal property, whenever they feel they want to.
> 
> And its great that things like what Cliff described don't happen under you, you're one of how many K9 officers (I'm assuming you are one). I also want you to know that I would have no problem with an officer using a dog, I think its a great tool...but the law just isn't clear on these issues, its very situational, which it shouldn't be.
> 
> ...



Officers use all sorts of tools that aren't readily available to the public. Can you run a computer check on a drivers license on your in car computer, can you run the vehicle registration, can you tell if the person has a warrant. do you have a radio to the police station and the availability to talk to them. I also have a bullet resistant vest, several guns, pepper spray etc, all tools. They all have their purpose and they all have their use. They can all be very intrusive. Doesn't mean I use them all, all the time, but none the less, they are there and available to sue. 

As far as the "air" being free, it isn't always free. It is however, around your vehicle that has been stopped for a violation on public streets. You'd have to research the differences about "free air" depending on where you are located and why you are located there. I have to know the difference to do my job. 

dFrost


----------



## ladylaw203 (May 18, 2001)

jocoyn said:


> ----------------------
> 
> I can say that I certainly know black folks in the South who have been pulled over and harrassed for what they jokingly call a "DWB" (Driving while black). I think it depends on where you are but you get into rural parts of SC and it is like a third world country. If you don't believe it watch "corridor of shame" about schools in the I-95 corridor.
> 
> .


Well, you dont know many. Again, there are racial profiling laws in place that require documentation of all contacts with the public. Stats are kept. Video tapes must be kept for months. I can assure you that any racial profiling is taken seriously and is not tolerated. The ignorant ones doing will eventually pay for it


----------



## martemchik (Nov 23, 2010)

Ok...you guys are getting extremely defensive. But...after rereading the article, its not the decision of the officer to send out the dog (no matter how much documentation you have) its the training of the dog that could be challenged. So how do you feel about that? That the defense can bring in everything to do with the K9 officer and challenge it and in the case stated in the article they proved the dog was not reliable...no idea how they did that, but you both seem to have a very strong conviction that your dog is extremely reliable (understandably its your dog). How would you prove that in court? To a judge that might then throw out the key evidence and therefore the charge against the accused.

In my opinion, anything less than a 100% correct alert rate can be challenged, and the K9 can be then called unreliable. I know enough about law to know that the smallest thing will be found and challenged if the defense is good enough. So how would you feel to go into court, and then get told that nothing your dog does from now on is admissible in court (if I read the article correctly that's what happened to Aldo).


----------



## NancyJ (Jun 15, 2003)

Soo you do know that David and Renee are career K9 Handlers, and that David trains other police dog handlers and that Renee (past president NNDDA) is a ceritifying official for NNDDA and that both have testified in court frequently?


----------



## DFrost (Oct 29, 2006)

martemchik said:


> Ok...you guys are getting extremely defensive. But...after rereading the article, its not the decision of the officer to send out the dog (no matter how much documentation you have) its the training of the dog that could be challenged. So how do you feel about that? That the defense can bring in everything to do with the K9 officer and challenge it and in the case stated in the article they proved the dog was not reliable...no idea how they did that, but you both seem to have a very strong conviction that your dog is extremely reliable (understandably its your dog). How would you prove that in court? To a judge that might then throw out the key evidence and therefore the charge against the accused.
> 
> In my opinion, anything less than a 100% correct alert rate can be challenged, and the K9 can be then called unreliable. I know enough about law to know that the smallest thing will be found and challenged if the defense is good enough. So how would you feel to go into court, and then get told that nothing your dog does from now on is admissible in court (if I read the article correctly that's what happened to Aldo).


)" its the training of the dog that could be challenged." When I present the evidence of a well trained dog, I present the documentation of every training aid the dog has had the opportunity to find for the past full year. I also present each time the dog was used in actual deployment and what the results of that deployment were, (whether the dog responded or not) for the past year. then I provide the results of the search, positive or negative, subsequent each response the dog has had during actual deployments for the past year. Keeping in mind we are establishing probable cause, I let the records and the dog's performance, speak for its' self. 


I disagree I'm being defensive. Rather, I'm presenting the facts as they are in real life. I have proven that a dog is "extremely reliable" on numerous occasions. I stated in my last post I have testified in State and Federal court. Challenging the training of the dog is routine in cases where the dog is being challenged. The training is being challenged because the dog was used to sniff the exterior of the vehicle, the dog responded, drugs were found, the subject was placed under arrest and is now trying desperately to not go to jail. As for your last question; "So how would you feel to go into court, and then get told that nothing your dog does from now on is admissible in court" If it were to happen to all dogs, then it's time to lock it up, hunker down because the bad guys have won. 

DFrost


----------



## martemchik (Nov 23, 2010)

DFrost said:


> )As for your last question; "So how would you feel to go into court, and then get told that nothing your dog does from now on is admissible in court" If it were to happen to all dogs, then it's time to lock it up, hunker down because the bad guys have won.


Any ideas as to why it happened to the dog in the article? Was that just before you guys knew what you would have to do in order to prove your dog was trained well? It's just for my own knowledge as to why something like that would happen. I'm guessing it was failure by the handler to provide some sort of documentation, but I guess you never know for sure what exactly convinced the judge the dog wasn't reliable.


----------



## martemchik (Nov 23, 2010)

jocoyn said:


> Soo you do know that David and Renee are career K9 Handlers, and that David trains other police dog handlers and that Renee (past president NNDDA) is a ceritifying official for NNDDA and that both have testified in court frequently?


And I'm not questioning them or their abilities, I'm questioning the law which governs how they have to do their job.

I wish I had people on this forum that would defend my honor when I'm in a discussion....


----------



## NancyJ (Jun 15, 2003)

I was not defending any "honor" just stating they "probably" know what they are talking about here. The idea that detection dogs are not 100% has been known for years and is well documented in accepted standards which have been brought up in court (Have not seen any accepting below 90%). 

The doctor who cuts you open did not get 100% on all his tests and actually got by with 70-80%, That blood test for blood borne diseases is probably somewhere in the 99% plus range. 

The only thing you expect to be 100% are some computerized machine checks. [which is why the detectability rating on an FMEA risk assessment favors computerized machine checks over human reviews and weights them accordingly]--I think David answered this with the statement "probable cause" not "absolute cause". I would imagine part of the reason cadaver dog indications are considered only "reasonable suspicion" is due to the fact that human remains (for example dried blood, old unmarked graves, etc) are pretty much all over the place and the dog could be indicating on an unrelated HR source.


----------



## ladylaw203 (May 18, 2001)

jocoyn said:


> I was not defending any "honor" just stating they "probably" know what they are talking about here. The idea that detection dogs are not 100% has been known for years and is well documented in accepted standards which have been brought up in court (Have not seen any accepting below 90%).
> 
> The doctor who cuts you open did not get 100% on all his tests and actually got by with 70-80%, That blood test for blood borne diseases is probably somewhere in the 99% plus range.
> 
> The only thing you expect to be 100% are some computerized machine checks. [which is why the detectability rating on an FMEA risk assessment favors computerized machine checks over human reviews and weights them accordingly]--I think David answered this with the statement "probable cause" not "absolute cause". I would imagine part of the reason cadaver dog indications are considered only "reasonable suspicion" is due to the fact that human remains (for example dried blood, old unmarked graves, etc) are pretty much all over the place and the dog could be indicating on an unrelated HR source.


 
nancy is absolutley correct. There is NO such thing as 100% with much in this world. Between the two of us,david and I have a few years doing this. I am at 34 and on my second retirement from an agency. Defensive has nothing to do with it. We are trying to explain the way it is. David and I are both moderators. Your Honor? The discussion has been civil and factual. What exactly is your problem with it? We are trying to address your concerns but you are unfamiliar with search and seizure laws,probable cause etc and case law so it makes it difficult. As I previously stated, reliability in a scent detector dog gets hard to judge in the real world. Maintenance training is a known. The real world is not and stats can be skewed. Say one searched 20 cars and found contraband in 10. 50%?? wellllll not so fast. guess how many times the dogs alert on residual because the guy just unloaded 100lbs. yep had it happen. dope had been cooking in that trunk in July for 200 miles. Passed the dope to another car that we stopped a little further down. so the dog was right on that one. how many others? not black and white out there. One must conduct one's maintenance training correctly and articulate same. What the defense attacks is whatever the current trend is. just the way it works. goes in fads. that is their job. They attack maintenance training, certification standards, etc etc. throw everything out there and see what sticks. The way it is


----------



## NancyJ (Jun 15, 2003)

As a civilian, I appreciate this kind of information because I realize the tremendous responsiblity in keeping clear and accurate training records, documenting hours of training etc. and why you absolutely must have national certifications.

The courts have been very reasonable with regards to cadaver dog handlers (perhaps because they don't establish probable cause) but I see the bar constantly being raised and realize bad results in court by one sloppy handler can reflect poorly on all. Nobody wants to be known as the handler who ruined it for everyone else (like the damage done by Sandra Anderson). 

I have been documenting our own training reliability (and ensuring my training records contain the SWDOG recommended fields) using the SWGDOG SC2 formula on "blind" problems only but am unclear about if those percentages *should* be kept for maintenance training and if they should be recalculated for intervals between certifications

The NAPWDA cert exceeds the SWGDOG guidelines as it requires 92% with one allowed FA (and if you get a FA, you need 100% because only one mistake is allowed) for the the entire set of problems. NASAR and IPWDA are valid for 2 years which I wonder how the difference between them and SWGDOG would be addressed since SWGDOG has been brought up in court? NNDDA, USPCA? (test not available to civilians)--


----------



## ladylaw203 (May 18, 2001)

jocoyn said:


> As a civilian, I appreciate this kind of information because I realize the tremendous responsiblity in keeping clear and accurate training records, documenting hours of training etc. and why you absolutely must have national certifications.
> 
> The courts have been very reasonable with regards to cadaver dog handlers (perhaps because they don't establish probable cause) but I see the bar constantly being raised and realize bad results in court by one sloppy handler can reflect poorly on all. Nobody wants to be done as the handler who ruined it for everyone else (like the damage done by Sandra Anderson).
> 
> ...


Two year cert is not industry standard and will ultimately have problems. IPWDA standards were too ambiquous for my taste last time I looked. And the double blind stuff is faddish. It is the latest "thing" though and has to be payed attention to. For me, I keep stats from known and blinds seperate just in case in comes into play later. You are correct about the slopppy handlers. It is happening. NNDDA standards have held recently in court in a supression hearing as reliable which makes me feel good. I wrote them. also, articulate with regard to ALL proofing. Animal and other. It came up in court. Defense will grab whatever they can. Be aware of the blood issue that I have harped about for years. It came up in the Casey Anthony trial. That is why I simply do not train on blood and have not. I knew it would eventually come up.


----------



## NancyJ (Jun 15, 2003)

It is why I was happy when NAPWDA switched to bone and tissue for cert requirements, both fresh and old...no blood. SWGDOG allows Blood. NAPWDA and IPWDA allow blood.


----------



## ladylaw203 (May 18, 2001)

jocoyn said:


> It is why I was happy when NAPWDA switched to bone and tissue for cert requirements, both fresh and old...no blood. SWGDOG allows Blood. NAPWDA and IPWDA allow blood.


 
SWGDOG just offers guidelines. IPWDA allows psuedo and the standards refer to cadaver material which could cover a plethra of things none of which I would train a dog on.


----------



## NancyJ (Jun 15, 2003)

Actually, too, I meant NASAR and IPWDA allow blood. NAPWDA got away from that. Too late to edit.


----------



## ladylaw203 (May 18, 2001)

jocoyn said:


> Actually, too, I meant NASAR and IPWDA allow blood. NAPWDA got away from that. Too late to edit.


 
too many Ns and As.....


----------



## DFrost (Oct 29, 2006)

The last three suppression hearings in which I've testified, SWGDOG was brought up by the defense. The questions to me, were (in general); 1. Was I aware SWGDOG 2. Did I know who the members were (agencies). Were our policies and procedures consistent with SWGDOG guidelines. 

DFrost


----------



## ladylaw203 (May 18, 2001)

DFrost said:


> The last three suppression hearings in which I've testified, SWGDOG was brought up by the defense. The questions to me, were (in general); 1. Was I aware SWGDOG 2. Did I know who the members were (agencies). Were our policies and procedures consistent with SWGDOG guidelines.
> 
> DFrost



Oh I know. SWG in many fields so defense is familiar.at least they finally got some representation from police service dog orgs to help those
phds....


----------



## DFrost (Oct 29, 2006)

Actually, I agree with a majority of the guidelines they've presented to date. I have to tell you though, I'm 99.9% certain I'll be retired NLT April of 13. It's been a great ride, but I think I'll ride off (on my Cushman Motor Scooters) into the sunset. ha ha ha

DFrost


----------



## ladylaw203 (May 18, 2001)

They have improved them. The first HRD was unbelievable ...
Well, I will eventually retire... again..... LOL


----------



## NancyJ (Jun 15, 2003)

Shades of gray in documentation as well. I called this a "miss", I think appropriately. I know some folks take some real artistic license with their training records. To me a miss is a miss, log it, fix it, move on.

Just got back from working some unknowns. The pup needed help. He was correct in how he was working the odor, just did not have much experience (yet) with this type of scenario.

Unknown hide 5 foot up in group of small trees. Sun hitting it hard. He was catching scent in adjacent woods and working it to death until he was foaming at the mouth and panting like mad (but no indication)...I correctly explained I thought it was lofting to the person who set up the problem, and started detailing what I thought would be logically be a correct area (note to self-take windicator!) but was detailing the wrong area to no avail. I finally said. "Ok help me narrow it down-he has not worked that many high outdoor hides yet and we need to finish this one" (He had already worked several other hides before this one and was hot/tired)..As soon as I worked him up into THAT clump of trees he went ballistic, bumped the source with his nose and spun into a sit (it was quite well hidden from my view!). But, he gets dinged for my failure. [This is the pup and he has ony been working unknowns for a few months now]

More importantly I will have to log now a plan to work more problems with lofting with him and follow up. I have enough tree problems with scent dropping early evening to know he will follow odor up a tree. Of course, it is one of our less frequent scenarios...I figure buried, covered and scattered are the most important. Also have notes to work on indicating a more quickly on buried problems as he wants to dig.

I would think any sensible person would see a training log - see an issue - and look for the issue to be fixed. If there are no issues in the logs, I would suspect someone who was good at creative writing.


----------



## ladylaw203 (May 18, 2001)

We went through that years ago with narc dogs. It was the norm to not show misses, false alerts etc in training logs. Finally a court case came down and duh, dogs are not perfect. Now we notate an issue and document what was done to rectify the problem. This is how it should be done and is now how we all do it. "perfect" performance in training logs damages the credibility of the handler because unless the handler is dragging the dog to the aid and soliciting the alert, it is not possible for the dog to be 100%
also,with regard to a high find. I never put stuff in trees. 34 years as a cop and I have seen one hanging in the woods.. There is not going to be a little HR up in a tree. It is all over the ground etc etc. Dog winds the whole thing.  high finds are better taught by something more realistic such as in a rock pile, a lumber pile, up on a rock ledge etc. not trees.


----------



## NancyJ (Jun 15, 2003)

It is one of those "certification" scenarios that someone (I think all three of these organizations) decided that you have to test for....so if you miss it....We do train more on rubble and brush piles (and also in mulch piles) than in trees.. but most of our calls are water, scattered, and searching designated areas for clandestine graves based on some new evidence. Have not had a "tree" search yet but I am only on my 4th year working a cadaver dog.


----------



## ladylaw203 (May 18, 2001)

jocoyn said:


> It is one of those "certification" scenarios that someone (I think all three of these organizations) decided that you have to test for....so if you miss it...... but most of our calls are water, scattered, and searcing designated areas for clandestine graves based on some new evidence. Have not had a "tree" scenario yet but I am only on my 4th year working a cadaver dog.


they put an aid in a tree???? geez. Oh well. 
Well, the only way some little aid is getting up a tree is if it falls from the sky I wont get graphic but with a hanging , there is plenty without the dog trying to wind something up a tree., just does not work that way. Have a whole set of HR producing odor. the dog does not work it the same as putting an aid up a tree......


----------

