# interesting article on police k9s used in drug searches



## boomer11 (Jun 9, 2013)

Legal challenge questions reliability of police dogs | Las Vegas Review-Journal

k9s used in the military to sniff out bombs and enemy threats are actually assets but imo k9's used in civilian settings is nothing more than a loophole to search you. this article applies to s&r dogs too. they can indicate a body when there is none just based on subtle cues by the handler or the handler thinking they are smarter than the dog and know where the body is and subconciously leading the dog in that direction.


----------



## fredh (Sep 10, 2013)

The Police K9 is a very valuable Law Enforcement Tool. In my 28 years with the R.C.M.P. (Royal Canadian Mounted Police) I regularly worked with our Dog Handlers and we caught a lot of bad guys with the Dog. Our Dogs were trained for tracking and Drug/Explosive Detection. When a Dog would indicate the presence of Narcotics either there were drugs present or residue of drugs being on premises or in vehicle in recent history. The last time I checked getting Illegal Drugs off the Street was a Good Thing!


----------



## Freestep (May 1, 2011)

I was kind of bummed the other thread was locked, because this is an interesting and problematic issue. I found it funny when you said you were excited to have the K9 come out to sniff the vehicle, because I would have thought the same thing.  But I always wondered how bringing out the K9 without a warrant is constitutional. I can sort of understand it at the border or airport, but at a random traffic stop? It doesn't seem right. Especially when you can make your dog false alert. I heard a story on NPR some time ago about an ex-cop who admitted that he did this.


----------



## wdkiser (May 7, 2013)

Any tool can be misused. I applaud the use of K9s for LEO's. They save lives and make the officers much more safe. 

Just because something is misused, doesn't mean it's a bad thing. If that cop was breaking the law, he would find a way to do it with or without the K9.


----------



## NancyJ (Jun 15, 2003)

The law treats indications by cadaver dogs differently than drug and bomb dogs and cadaver dogs *cannot *be used to secure a warrant less search. Cadaver dogs cannot even search an area for a body or evidence without permission of the property owner or a warrant. Permission to search an area is presumed for live find dogs since it is an emergency and a life may be at stake...though a live find dog indication on a house cannot secure access to the inside of that house without permission/warrant.

That said, the article was controversial when it came out but I am not the one with the expertise to provide the rebuttal arguments. That is because, as a cadaver dog handler, I rely on the police to deploy us and they are responsible for the issues of permission/deployment. 

I can say that that false indication issues are focused on in training with the intent of NOT generating false positives and good handlers track them in their records (I know Beau runs about 2% false alert rate, and 94% correct alert rate - no dog is 100%, just as human eyes are not 100%). Typically, you will fail a certification test if you have an incorrect response. I know with NAPWDA cadaver certification, out of 12 hides you can make one mistake. Period. That is either one miss or one false alert and if you miss, you fail the whole thing.

That said there are training approaches, such as "double blind" testing where neither the handler nor the evaluator know where the hides are until after the exercise is completed...to ensure cues by the evaluator do not impact either the handler or the dog.

As far as the legality, it has been upheld by the supreme court on repeated occasions and has been deemed constitutional. Searching the outside of someone's car in a public space is legal. Searching the outside of a home on private property is not. If you have an issue, I think rather than managing it on the forum, you need to take it to your elected representatives.


----------



## ladylaw203 (May 18, 2001)

The final trained response of a certified narcotic detector dog is PC for warrantless search of a motor vehicle on the highway because years ago the courts deemed that we can only hold an individual for a 'REASONABLE" length of time . Reasonablness was not really articulated other than generally, the time it takes me to have dispatch run clearances. Therefore, waiting for a k9 unit to arrive takes longer than what was considered reasonble. ALL contacts must be documented by law so our traffic stops now are on video. A cadaver dog's final trained response is considered reasonable suspicion ONLY not probable cause. 
As with all things, NOTHING is 100% and as a whole,as much as we are scrutinized, it is very difficult to be incompetent for any length of time


----------



## Castlemaid (Jun 29, 2006)

I moved this to Current Affairs, as the use of poorly trained dogs and bad handlers in legal cases is a real issue. The discussion should stay on subject and not turn into a personal anti-LEO rant, otherwise this thread will also be closed for Cop Bashing.

ADMIN


----------



## boomer11 (Jun 9, 2013)

even though the sample size was small and imo the test was setting the dogs up to fail, its still shocking at how miserably those k9 teams failed. i read another study where the k9 handler was falsely told that there was drugs in the room when the room was actually clean. in this case, the dog falsely indicated just because the handler themselves thought there were drugs there. 

there is no doubt that these dogs are an invaluable part of the police department. if you want to look at it with the glass half full view then these dogs basically have a 0% failure rate since they always find the drugs. but with a false positive being so easy it makes them unreliable and they shouldnt be a walking search warrant. i wonder how a military dog would have done in this test?


----------



## ladylaw203 (May 18, 2001)

http://www.npca.net/Files/SWGDOG/SWGDOG%20letter%20to%20editor.pdf

Here is the general opinion of one of those "studies" Old news. 
Those dogs were not even certified. 
Military dogs are not special. They are evaluated and trained the same way we do. And, If detection dogs in general were so lousy, their final trained responses(proper term. not alert) would not be holding up in court. Folks only see the publicized cases.
Actually this should be moved to police k9 section. This study is outdated so not current


----------



## Freestep (May 1, 2011)

I hope this doesn't turn into a "cop-bashing" thread. I have all the respect for our LE officers who put their lives on the line every day. Just like everything else, there is good and bad in LE, and I'm sure that those who are in that line of work have seen it firsthand. There are some policies that I might disagree with, and some individual bad apples, but I honestly think that the majority of LE officers don't go into it for the power trip. I could be wrong--if there are studies on this, I'd like to read them. But I have to give a nod to anyone who has the courage and discipline to face danger and put their lives on the line every day. I simply can't imagine what that's like.

And of course, I have to respect and admire the K9 officers. Even when you don't agree with the way they are used, you gotta love the dogs.


----------



## Freestep (May 1, 2011)

ladylaw203 said:


> their final trained responses(proper term. not alert)


Did it used to be called an "alert"? That's what I always heard. If the current proper terminology is "trained response", I like that a lot better.


----------



## NancyJ (Jun 15, 2003)

I know we have adopted SWGDOG terminology though sometimes slip into older terms.

If you click on the approved guidelines you will see a glossary etc. They are not binding. This is a consensus group made up of folks from a large number of organizations and they put out their documents for public comment. Certifying agencies can use the guidelines to define their programs and tests. There is no national standard for this, though there are some state standards or local standards by departments.

A well trained team is very reliable. There is also the issue with low quantities of drugs, blood, etc. being present than can cause an indication as well as dogs indicating on residual odor when no substance is present but the odor is still there. In spite of those things, reliability can be very good. Realize that a trained pilot, or a police officer, or a doctor, or a teacher, or anybody can and do have some level of error.

Welcome | Scientific Working Group on Dog and Orthogonal detector Guidelines


----------



## Liesje (Mar 4, 2007)

Freestep said:


> Did it used to be called an "alert"? That's what I always heard. If the current proper terminology is "trained response", I like that a lot better.


In Nosework it's called an "alert" and that is the verbal signal you give to the judge. At the higher levels you have to "clear" areas. You do not know how many hides, if any, are in that area or what scents they will be. I know it is a sport/for fun and thus much less at stake than a working K9 but a lot of the training and theory are similar (and the judges and people moving the orgs forward are mostly people who train LE and military dogs). At least in Nosework, "alert" is more appropriate because we don't really train the response. Each dog is different and we reinforce their alert but aren't required to demonstrate a specific response and one dog can have multiple alerts. As long as the handler knows, that's what's important. Any missed hide or false alert is a complete failure of the title at all levels (at least in NACSW, I think in UKC and C-WAGS you may be able to pass various parts of the title and piece them together but NACSW is like Schutzhund, you have to pass every search area at the trial to earn the title and move on).


----------



## ladylaw203 (May 18, 2001)

SWGDOG has nothing to do with the term. A court case many years ago caused many of us to go ahead and use the term final trained response. An alert is what we used to call a change in behavior. Semantics.


----------



## Freestep (May 1, 2011)

ladylaw203 said:


> A court case many years ago caused many of us to go ahead and use the term final trained response. An alert is what we used to call a change in behavior. Semantics.


Ah, that makes sense. I figured lawyers were probably behind it.


----------



## ladylaw203 (May 18, 2001)

Oh yes. we stay up on current trends in the courtroom and adjust....LOL


----------



## boomer11 (Jun 9, 2013)

ladylaw203 said:


> http://www.npca.net/Files/SWGDOG/SWGDOG%20letter%20to%20editor.pdf
> 
> Here is the general opinion of one of those "studies" Old news.
> Those dogs were not even certified.
> ...


this is what the article was about. they are afraid cases will be thrown out because the dogs were getting cued and actually not detecting drugs. you know better than me but i am assuming every time there is a search that there has to be paperwork and the search is documented? what percentage do you think the dogs actually find drugs?? that article says that a study was conducted and drugs were only found in 44% of the time when the dog actually alerted. of course the article was biased so i take it with a grain of salt. but to me if the dog alerts and drugs cant be found more than 80% of the time then its clearly unreliable and shouldnt be a walking warrant. 

to me if a dog cant tell the difference between drug residue or bacon or 20 pounds of cocaine and alerts to all of them then our 4th amendment rights shouldnt be put in their hands. and if the dogs can tell but the officer cues them to alert anyways then the dog is being manipulated and are untrustworthy. 

i'd be really interested to know how many times drugs were actually found when the dog alerted. of course the police department wouldnt release such numbers.


----------



## ladylaw203 (May 18, 2001)

I am well aware of what the article was about. The study was flawed,not set up correctly, dogs used were not even certified. 
That being said. 

I dont know where you are coming up with dogs being unable to distinguish a trained odor from bacon or whatever else but that is ludicrous. Dogs can discriminate odor. That is why we can train them for scent detection. We have to keep meticulous training logs. Our dogs must be maintenance trained and perpetually proofed off of non target odors. THAT is how the dog is used as PC. The dog ONLY exhibits final trained response on the target odor the dog was trained on whether it is narcotics, explosives,human remains, etc. training logs reflect proficiency. AND just because contraband was not located after the final trained response does not mean it was not there. Residual odor is something we deal with and the courts recognize.


----------



## boomer11 (Jun 9, 2013)

what do you mean by the courts recognize? its not illegal to smell like drugs. you cant be arrested just because your car smells like drugs or has residual drug odor. so if the dog cant even tell the difference between real drugs and just odor from the past then the dog is just basically wasting everyones time. imo that is the definition of not being reliable. 

this happened to a friend of a friend so who knows how skewed the story has become before it reached my ears but here it is. a cop pulls a guy over for swerving. the cop insists the guy has drugs and wants to search. cop pulls the dog out of his car and the dog alerts to a backpack in the trunk. cop searches the backpack and it turns out that the backpack was his emergency back pack in case he was stuck in a snow storm. the dog alerted to two cans of dog food. there were no drugs to be found but the dog wanted to alert. it couldnt find drugs so it alerted to the next smell that is out of the ordinary. i also find it pretty dumb that a dog gets the reward when it alerts. the dog should only get rewarded if drugs are actually found. if not the dog could simply get frustrated and just sit so they can get rewarded.


----------



## DaniFani (Jan 24, 2013)

boomer11 said:


> what do you mean by the courts recognize? its not illegal to smell like drugs. you cant be arrested just because your car smells like drugs or has residual drug odor. so if the dog cant even tell the difference between real drugs and just odor from the past then the dog is just basically wasting everyones time. imo that is the definition of not being reliable.
> 
> this happened to a friend of a friend so who knows how skewed the story has become before it reached my ears but here it is. a cop pulls a guy over for swerving. the cop insists the guy has drugs and wants to search. cop pulls the dog out of his car and the dog alerts to a backpack in the trunk. cop searches the backpack and it turns out that the backpack was his emergency back pack in case he was stuck in a snow storm. the dog alerted to two cans of dog food. there were no drugs to be found but the dog wanted to alert. it couldnt find drugs so it alerted to the next smell that is out of the ordinary. i also find it pretty dumb that a dog gets the reward when it alerts. the dog should only get rewarded if drugs are actually found. if not the dog could simply get frustrated and just sit so they can get rewarded.


You are jumping to so many conclusions based on previously de-bunked studies, and hear-say, friend of a friend of a friend stories. Do you really expect someone to debate a story with you that may or not be true, that was told to you by someone who heard it from someone, who knew who it happened to?

If a cop pulls you over, you roll down the window, and wreak of meth/coke/pot (although in some states pot is legal), the SMELL in and of itself is probable cause for the officer. So, while it's not illegal to smell like drugs, it's probable cause.

You also can't wait until after drugs are found to reward the dog. Sometimes the dog alerts on a hidden compartment in a dash. The officers then need to get into the dash. So the dog has to, what? Sit and wait for an hour while they dig into the car, and then "ah ha, here Fido...that alert earlier? You were right, here's your reward for that alert 45 mins ago." Come on...I thought you trained dogs, they need to be rewarded immediately to understand what the heck they are doing right. Timing is one of the hardest things for handlers to get right in the second they need to. 

Most of the dogs I've seen trained are tracking dogs, so I don't know a ton about the drug stuff. However, like others have said, just like everything, there are bad apples, poor training, and incidences of mis-conduct in every job, everywhere. I also think if a dog was falsely indicating (every time would have to be logged) multiple times, it wouldn't last long....police departments don't want that liability. 

Renee, how do they account for the "residue" alerts? Do they do any specific training to take that into account? Any idea how many ppm a dog can still alert on as far as "past residue." Do they train only to alert on certain amounts?

Edit: I should add, have you ever seen what a K9 officer has to provide and prove in the courts when it comes to defending arrests/searches/etc...they have to go over every bit of training, hours, logs, etc...it isn't just a judge saying, "oh, you're a K9 officer?? Well, I'll just take your word on the training." All training is gone over, in depth, every.single.time. the officer has to go to court.


----------



## boomer11 (Jun 9, 2013)

DaniFani said:


> You are jumping to so many conclusions based on previously de-bunked studies, and hear-say, friend of a friend of a friend stories. Do you really expect someone to debate a story with you that may or not be true, that was told to you by someone who heard it from someone, who knew who it happened to?
> 
> If a cop pulls you over, you roll down the window, and wreak of meth/coke/pot (although in some states pot is legal), the SMELL in and of itself is probable cause for the officer. So, while it's not illegal to smell like drugs, it's probable cause.
> 
> ...


well i did start by saying i dont know how skewed the story is but it is certainly possible for a dog to alert to dog food and not drugs. if you smell of drugs then yes that is enough for a cop to search. if its just residual odor that a human cant smell but a dog can and the dog alerts then yes it is wasting everyones time. the cops spend time tearing the car apart to find nothing and completely wastes everyone's time. 

also a dog that is working in the real world ISNT training. the dog should know exactly what its suppose to do and what will get it the reward. if you reward and praise the dog every single time it sits then what are you teaching it? drug or not i am getting a reward. timing is important but i would argue what is more important is only rewarding when the dog does something correctly. timing means nothing if you are rewarding the wrong behavior or the half correct behavior. 

not directing this to anyone in particular but dogs do false alert and they do take cues from the handler. it happened to me. military and sar handlers have no incentive to be correct so they just let the dogs work. police do have incentive. if their hunch is that there is drugs, they WANT the dog to alert so they can prove their hunch correct.


----------



## ladylaw203 (May 18, 2001)

Your post really makes no sense. Why would a dog get rewarded just for sitting? You mean obedience training? Dogs don't alert on dog food . dogs can and do false alert. Through maintenance training we strive to eliminate it. As far as wanting a dog to alert. We do if there us contraband there otherwise not hardly. I don't want to waste my time. You assume too much


----------



## DaniFani (Jan 24, 2013)

boomer11 said:


> well i did start by saying i dont know how skewed the story is but it is certainly possible for a dog to alert to dog food and not drugs. if you smell of drugs then yes that is enough for a cop to search. if its just residual odor that a human cant smell but a dog can and the dog alerts then yes it is wasting everyones time. the cops spend time tearing the car apart to find nothing and completely wastes everyone's time.
> 
> also a dog that is working in the real world ISNT training. the dog should know exactly what its suppose to do and what will get it the reward. if you reward and praise the dog every single time it sits then what are you teaching it? drug or not i am getting a reward. timing is important but i would argue what is more important is only rewarding when the dog does something correctly. timing means nothing if you are rewarding the wrong behavior or the half correct behavior.
> 
> not directing this to anyone in particular but dogs do false alert and they do take cues from the handler. it happened to me. military and sar handlers have no incentive to be correct so they just let the dogs work. police do have incentive. if their hunch is that there is drugs, they WANT the dog to alert so they can prove their hunch correct.


I promise you, cops don't care about it nearly as much as you think they do. It's just another shift to them, if they get drugs off the street/intoxicated people out from behind the wheel? Awesome. I hope cops ARE way more diligent about drugs in a car, because that means the person could be driving intoxicated. You want to start talking about statistics/studies, lets look at some of the motor vehicle deaths and injuries caused by intoxicated drivers.

I am not denying that there aren't bad cops out there or untrained/ill trained dogs...just like there are bad doctors, lawyers, dog trainers, etc....I just don't think *most K9 handlers are making their dog false-alert to search a vehicle.

I am also really confused about your proposed reward system. So, at what point should the dog get rewarded? Usually the handler isn't the one that searches where the dog alerts, the lead officer is. The dog doesn't sit and watch the search. It also takes several moments between alert and search, if not much longer. Where do you suggest the dog get rewarded? Remember, it has to be crystal clear to the dog WHAT he is being rewarded for. Your fear might be valid to me if you could pull up legitimate studies of dogs false indicating because they think "sitting" gets them a reward. As Renee pointed out, K9 training has been challenged and *upheld* over and over. The bad eggs are weeded out pretty quick. If anything, I would believe there are way more dogs that miss indications, miss hidden bodies, etc..than dogs that indicate on everything. I think the issue lies more in dogs missing things, than indicating things that aren't there.

Remember, it's a two-way street, you stop rewarding when the dog alerts, why should the dog alert? You give him a random reward, moments/hours after an alert, he thinks he's getting it for absolutely no reason.


----------



## NancyJ (Jun 15, 2003)

Boomer, anything I say is in deference to Renee (ladylaw) who is a police officer and does this stuff daily. BUT. 

We NEVER reward a cadaver dog unless we know 100% that they have indicated on human remains. NEVER. That means during a search, the dog does not get a reward unless it is painfully obvious. Of course they quickly get an opportunity AFTER the search when we get home to work a problem and get a reward. EDIT. Think "Jackpot effect". You are best to reward on a random schedule and make sure to prevent extinction by having enough rewards to make the dog want to. Honestly, I know they work for the reward but a good detection dog is SO driven it WANTs the hunt. 

Since we were taught by police dog handlers, for the most part, I assume that is consistent with what they do. I cannot speak for the police handlers though, other than what I have observed. Which is usually the person who set up the problem telling the handler to reward their dog after the handler "calls" it. A good handler can read their dog well enough to know when a sit is just a sit and when the dog is indicating on odor. You have to read both the body language and the trained behavior. You try not to set up your own problems either. I don't WANT to know where my hides are, but I do want confirmation before I reward.

And what the heck do you mean "SAR handlers have no incentive to be correct". That is so wrong. The first time you tell someone they need to dig up a location because a body is there and it is not, your credibility would go right out the window and so would your chances of being called back. And if you miss a live person, they just might die! Those are major major stakes.


----------



## DaniFani (Jan 24, 2013)

jocoyn said:


> Boomer, anything I say is in deference to Renee (ladylaw) who is a police officer and does this stuff daily. BUT.
> 
> We NEVER reward a cadaver dog unless we know 100% that they have indicated on human remains. NEVER. That means during a search, the dog does not get a reward unless it is painfully obvious. Of course the quickly get an opportunity AFTER the search when we get home to work a problem and get a reward.
> 
> ...


Just curious, and I think it's awesome what you do, how do you know to reward or not if you must dig to find the cadaver? Do you wait? Could you explain just a little about your reward system? Don't mean to pry, just curious.  I know NOTHING about cadaver training, little about drug dogs(haven't seen the training, but have discussed it to an extent), and some about patrol/tracking dogs (through friends that are handlers and friends that train handlers/dogs that have allowed me to observe and help out a little...plus lots of questions and talks with them.

Edit: Re-reading now, I guess I thought you were referring to rewarding in the field (live/real search) not training, but you were talking about training. Earlier I was talking about rewarding a dog in a live/real search. I would assume, and according to your experiences, that in training you would be able to quickly find out if the dog is indicating correctly, and then reward accordingly(obviously not rewarding for a false alert). Just curious how the reward system works on a live search/detection/alert. Hope that makes sense. ;-)


----------



## boomer11 (Jun 9, 2013)

well here goes more assuming....

what i meant by sar handlers dont have an incentive is that they just let the dog work. they dont influence the dog like police can (when they want to be right). if a sar handler influences the dog then they can be wrong and be embarrassed. sar and military just let the dog work and trust the dog. police i cant say the same for. they have no problem or consequences if they influence the dog and its wrong. 

a dog that is so easily influenced shouldnt be a walking search warrant. to search a house you need a signed warrant from a judge and present probable cause but to search a car all you need is a dog to indicate? that sounds fair. dogs are invaluable when it comes to any type of nose work. they have saved a lot of lives and help seized billions in drugs but it doesnt mean they should be a loophole for our 4th amendment rights.


----------



## DaniFani (Jan 24, 2013)

jocoyn said:


> Boomer, anything I say is in deference to Renee (ladylaw) who is a police officer and does this stuff daily. BUT.
> 
> We NEVER reward a cadaver dog unless we know 100% that they have indicated on human remains. NEVER. That means during a search, the dog does not get a reward unless it is painfully obvious. Of course they quickly get an opportunity AFTER the search when we get home to work a problem and get a reward. *EDIT. Think "Jackpot effect". You are best to reward on a random schedule and make sure to prevent extinction by having enough rewards to make the dog want to. Honestly, I know they work for the reward but a good detection dog is SO driven it WANTs the hunt.
> *
> ...


Nevermind my last post, this Edit answers my question, and makes complete sense to me. Thanks.


----------



## NancyJ (Jun 15, 2003)

We do not reward on a real search, other than good boy, work more. I edited to clarify while you were replying (see above). That is what I was referring to. 

Myself and my cadaver dog teammates normally do play with our dogs (a few ball tosses) to mark the end of searching an area but they do not get the full out wild and absolutely crazy tug play they get for locating source during training.

That is why I said that we like to set up something AFTER a search to give them a chance to earn a reward. 

Any more though, thanks to a deceitful handler (Sandy Anderson) we cannot take training aids to a search scene so have to wait until we get home. The dogs are also used to getting a lot of training in negative areas without any finds so they learn they won't find something every time they go out. They are also used to occasionally NOT getting a reward for a training find (jackpot effect)......intermittent rewards.

I am not sure how that works with drug dogs who work work work all day long -


----------



## ladylaw203 (May 18, 2001)

SAR and military handlers can inadvertently cue a dog too. It is obvious that you are not very familiar with scent detection.the dog is not a walking search warrant. More to it than that. This is going nowhere. Your dislike of police is obvious.


----------



## MichaelE (Dec 15, 2012)

Both are better off on your ignore list.

They're legends in their own minds.


----------



## boomer11 (Jun 9, 2013)

ladylaw203 said:


> SAR and military handlers can inadvertently cue a dog too. It is obvious that you are not very familiar with scent detection.the dog is not a walking search warrant. More to it than that. This is going nowhere. Your dislike of police is obvious.


actually i do not dislike the police. i am friends with an officer that lives 2 houses down. i admire them for doing a job that i cannot do. i find that most officers i've dealt with are respectful and some have a sense of humor. they are regular people doing a tough job. but they are people. they do have emotions and when you deal with thugs and disrespectful people it is very easy to let your emotions take hold and use a dog in the wrong way. a police officer could easily influence the dog because there are no consequences if the dog is wrong and the officers hunch is wrong. 

sar and military dogs have a lot at stake. if they falsely indicate then soldiers could be stuck in an environment open to attack. if a sar dog falsely indicates then you could be wasting time for someone who could have hours to live. if a police dog falsely indicates then its no big deal. no drugs? oh well. 

my dislike is towards the law and how a dog is loosely used as a search warrant. i do stand by that statement. if an officer wants to search your car (for whatever reason) there is absolutely no way to stop them. NONE!


----------



## DaniFani (Jan 24, 2013)

MichaelE said:


> Both are better off on your ignore list.
> 
> They're legends in their own minds.


Lol, why the disdain for me MichaelE?? (If you are referring to me) Goodness gracious me.


----------



## DaniFani (Jan 24, 2013)

jocoyn said:


> We do not reward on a real search, other than good boy, work more. I edited to clarify while you were replying (see above). That is what I was referring to.
> 
> Myself and my cadaver dog teammates normally do play with our dogs (a few ball tosses) to mark the end of searching an area but they do not get the full out wild and absolutely crazy tug play they get for locating source during training.
> 
> ...


Thanks for the info. My friend who handles the patrol K9 plays tug with him every time someone is found, all the way back to the car. He regales me with his tales of mile long tug sessions lol. But, that's an obvious find, bad guy is at the end. Of course that's only one officer's handling, not sure if it's common.


----------



## ladylaw203 (May 18, 2001)

SAR and military dogs false too. I work with those folks as well. You don't know the business very well.


----------



## boomer11 (Jun 9, 2013)

actually i think you just dont understand my post very well. i never said sar and military dogs do not false indicate or take inadvertent cues from handlers. what i said was that police dont care as much if their dogs falsely indicate. the consequences of a police dog falsely indicating isnt as high as a sar or bomb dog. i mean you gotta agree with at least that much?


----------



## erfunhouse (Jun 8, 2013)

Freestep said:


> I was kind of bummed the other thread was locked, because this is an interesting and problematic issue. I found it funny when you said you were excited to have the K9 come out to sniff the vehicle, because I would have thought the same thing.  But I always wondered how bringing out the K9 without a warrant is constitutional. I can sort of understand it at the border or airport, but at a random traffic stop? It doesn't seem right. Especially when you can make your dog false alert. I heard a story on NPR some time ago about an ex-cop who admitted that he did this.



How can they call a dog out? Because they had probably cause to stop someone in the first place.

Additionally, when a police officer either (a) sees something they suspect with reasonable belief to be suspicious or (b) the person is on probation/parole or (c) has had priors for drugs/alcohol or even (d) someone gives permission to search the car it is now legal. 

Not that hard to understand if you do a simple google search or call a station commander.


----------



## erfunhouse (Jun 8, 2013)

boomer11 said:


> what do you mean by the courts recognize? its not illegal to smell like drugs. you cant be arrested just because your car smells like drugs or has residual drug odor. so if the dog cant even tell the difference between real drugs and just odor from the past then the dog is just basically wasting everyones time. imo that is the definition of not being reliable.
> 
> this happened to a friend of a friend so who knows how skewed the story has become before it reached my ears but here it is. a cop pulls a guy over for swerving. the cop insists the guy has drugs and wants to search. cop pulls the dog out of his car and the dog alerts to a backpack in the trunk. cop searches the backpack and it turns out that the backpack was his emergency back pack in case he was stuck in a snow storm. the dog alerted to two cans of dog food. there were no drugs to be found but the dog wanted to alert. it couldnt find drugs so it alerted to the next smell that is out of the ordinary. i also find it pretty dumb that a dog gets the reward when it alerts. the dog should only get rewarded if drugs are actually found. if not the dog could simply get frustrated and just sit so they can get rewarded.


Out here you CAN"T be arrested for having a "drug smell" in the car, however, you sure as shoot can call out the k9 to find it and you CAN be arrested for residue. Had I been the officer that had a dog alert and you guys had the attitude you posted, I would have hit you with the residue charge. 

Let it go. Grow up. Have a problem? Act like an adult and take it through the proper venues.


----------



## erfunhouse (Jun 8, 2013)

boomer11 said:


> actually i do not dislike the police. i am friends with an officer that lives 2 houses down. i admire them for doing a job that i cannot do. i find that most officers i've dealt with are respectful and some have a sense of humor. they are regular people doing a tough job. but they are people. they do have emotions and when you deal with thugs and disrespectful people it is very easy to let your emotions take hold and use a dog in the wrong way. a police officer could easily influence the dog because there are no consequences if the dog is wrong and the officers hunch is wrong.
> 
> sar and military dogs have a lot at stake. if they falsely indicate then soldiers could be stuck in an environment open to attack. if a sar dog falsely indicates then you could be wasting time for someone who could have hours to live. if a police dog falsely indicates then its no big deal. no drugs? oh well.
> 
> my dislike is towards the law and how a dog is loosely used as a search warrant. i do stand by that statement. if an officer wants to search your car (for whatever reason) there is absolutely no way to stop them. NONE!


Well shoot....have these debates with your friend. Ask his station commander. Ask him what legal and adult venues you have to pursue a complaint since that is what you seem to have here. Founded or not...arguing here with people who know what they are talking about is getting you no where.


----------



## David Winners (Apr 30, 2012)

Can't believe I missed all that LOL.

If a team regularly false indicates they lose their certification, as well as the respect of those called out to do the physical search.

Dogs are proofed off distractor odors continuously in training and are tested using distractors during certification.

Boomer, you obviously have no idea what goes into detection training or field work. You really can't validly argue these points. Nothing against you, but you lack understanding of how detection dogs are trained and utilized. 


As far as rewarding the dog on real finds, most narc and explosives handlers carry a drop aid that can be planted off to the side after the search so the dog is being paid for known odor. These dogs usually work on a variable reward schedule, do they don't get paid for every find anyhow.

David Winners


----------



## ladylaw203 (May 18, 2001)

boomer11 said:


> actually i think you just dont understand my post very well. i never said sar and military dogs do not false indicate or take inadvertent cues from handlers. what i said was that police dont care as much if their dogs falsely indicate. the consequences of a police dog falsely indicating isnt as high as a sar or bomb dog. i mean you gotta agree with at least that much?


 I most certainly DO disagree. I have been a cop 35 years. retired from one large agency and now work for a second for retirement number two. I have have handled and trained police k9s for most of my career. First of all, if our dogs false alert in maintenance training,we FIX it. The courts obtain all of our training records for supression hearings. They go through them and look at the dog's reliability. WE document what they do on the street AND in maintenance training. THAT if for no other reason. ALso, I dont have time for a dog falsing. Wastes my time and everyone involved. So do not imply that police officers are unethical and that there are no consequences for false alerts. you have no idea what you are talking about because you know nothing about scent detection


----------



## ladylaw203 (May 18, 2001)

David Winners said:


> Can't believe I missed all that LOL.
> 
> If a team regularly false indicates they lose their certification, as well as the respect of those called out to do the physical search.
> 
> ...


You are correct. I handle explosive detection dogs, narcotic detection dogs and human remains detector dogs. One should never never reward their dog unless one knows that the dog was dead on. If circumstances dont lend themselves for ultimately rewarding the dog for the find,we go elsewhere and set up a training scenario in order to reward the dog


----------



## NancyJ (Jun 15, 2003)

Glad to see everybody is on the same page about only rewarding known hides. I figured so but could not answer for others.


----------



## boomer11 (Jun 9, 2013)

So you guys are saying you can't cue your dog to falsely indicate? It only indicates when it smells drugs?


----------



## NancyJ (Jun 15, 2003)

I do not think a single person said every dog/handler is perfect and never has a miss. They better have darned FEW incorrect calls though. 

You want a dog that you can't "talk into it" inadvertently and you train for that but NOTHING that involves people or animals is 100% and they have not yet come up with field detection equipment that comes anywhere near the sensitivity and accuracy of a dog.


----------



## ladylaw203 (May 18, 2001)

boomer11 said:


> So you guys are saying you can't cue your dog to falsely indicate? It only indicates when it smells drugs?


 
Good grief. Read what I posted earlier. there is NO such thing as 100% in dogs OR humans. The supreme court accepts less than 100% proficiency perhaps you should too We STRIVE for perfection. In all things knowing we will not achieve it. the instruments used are not even 100% You know nothing about scent detection so you are not grasping what I am saying apparently or I am not explaining it in a manner that you can understand


----------



## David Winners (Apr 30, 2012)

I took the Pepsi challenge against all the electronic and xray equipment available, and the dog was far more accurate in every trial. There is really no comparison to the efficiency and effectiveness of a dog compared to other detection devices.

You could purchase, train and maintain 20 dogs for the cost of 1 x-Ray system. 

JMHO

David Winners


----------



## David Winners (Apr 30, 2012)

boomer11 said:


> So you guys are saying you can't cue your dog to falsely indicate? It only indicates when it smells drugs?


Anyone can tell a dog to sit! Integrity and personal courage matter to people of honor. I guarantee I could get you to sit if I really wanted to. Nothing is perfect man.

David Winners


----------



## Okin (Feb 27, 2013)

I'm all for dogs being used for protection, bomb detection, cadaver search but I don't believe they should be able to have a dog search your car without a warrant for drugs. That just seems downright unconstitutional to me. 

I was on my way to a large concert in a RV and was being profiled and pulled over for a drug search because apparently we were following to close to the car in front of us. There was a line of police officers pulling people over and ironically we got out of the right lane because an officer had another car going to the concert pulled over and so we moved to the left lane to give them room and that was "following to close" which lead us to be pulled over and had a drug dog called. Being in an RV it was high off the ground so we could see right under it. The officer had us sit outside the RV and walked around the entire part we could see and the dog didn't react, he walked to the other side and we could see him under the RV pick the dog's front legs up and put them on the RV, the dog didn't sit or indicate anything. The officer came over and said the dog "hit on the RV on the other side". I asked if I could see the dog indicate he said I don't have that right. I asked if it was in view of the cam in the car he said no. They then spent two hours tearing up a rented RV and found nothing. 

Ironically I work at a school and just last week the local police brought in a drug sniffing dog to show the kids a demonstration about finding drugs. The officer hid a bad a marijuana, the dog kept running over to a different part of the gym. The officer literally pulled the dog over to where he hid the marijuana the dog completely ignored it. 

I will admit I am probably a bit jaded by my experience.


----------



## martemchik (Nov 23, 2010)

I believe we had a discussion about this exact topic a few months ago. Renee (LadyLaw) pretty much explained that although the supreme court has accepted less than 100% accuracy, there is a limit to how "bad" a dog's record could be to still be accepted in court. She explained that the dog's training and record get grilled in court, and the handler really has to be on top of their game in order for a good defense attorney to not discredit the dog/handler team and get evidence thrown out that was found because the search was based on a dog's indication.

Let's put it this way, as someone with nothing to hide, if an officer pulled me over, and for no good reason decided to spend even an extra 10 minutes of my time because he has a K9 in the back to sniff around my vehicle...I'd be angry, but wouldn't do anything. If that dog indicated and then the officer spent an hour of my time combing through my vehicle just to find nothing (I know 100% that nothing would be found), I'd be super angry. If that officer wasn't a K9 handler and then decided to call in a buddy with a K9 to do that and wasted even more of my time, I'd also be angry and the last two situations would definitely lead me to file complaints and hopefully an investigation into what occurred or at least this false indication would go on the dog's record. The more false indications the dog has...the less credible it is in court (not a good thing IMO if the dog actually does do its job and then the evidence is thrown out due to the dog's bad record). But this is probably the biggest reason why K9 handlers would not force their dog to indicate.


----------



## NancyJ (Jun 15, 2003)

Okin, the dog can be an excellent tool, with a documented level of reliability, used properly. The Supreme Court determines matters of Constitutionality and has said it is repeatedly and has put constraints around the use of such dogs.

Local issues with perceived misuse of a dog is no different than other concerns with possible police abuses and really should NOT be the topic of this dog forum as it is political in nature and should be managed in that arena.

Discussions on the reliability and training of detection dogs is a valid topic.


----------



## Okin (Feb 27, 2013)

jocoyn said:


> Okin, the dog can be an excellent tool, with a documented level of reliability, used properly. The Supreme Court determines matters of Constitutionality and has said it is repeatedly and has put constraints around the use of such dogs.
> 
> Local issues with perceived misuse of a dog is no different than other concerns with possible police abuses and really should NOT be the topic of this dog forum as it is political in nature and should be managed in that arena.
> 
> Discussions on the reliability and training of detection dogs is a valid topic.


I apologize if what I posted was inappropriate. Those were the only two interactions with drug dogs I have personally had and thought they might be interesting to some people.


----------



## MichaelE (Dec 15, 2012)

In the Air Force we were always advised when purchasing a new (used) car to bring it by the Cop Shop and have the handlers run a dog through the vehicle to eliminate surprises at the gate going through a search.

A couple of my friends bought cars where residue was found.


----------



## Blanketback (Apr 27, 2012)

My only experience with scent detection dogs was when I took the bus over the Can/US border. It saved tons of time - everyone piled their stuff in the middle of the room, the dog walked past it, and we reboarded the bus. IDK if it's still done this simply today, but it was very cool. Maybe not so cool if you're trying to get contraband across, lol?


----------



## crackem (Mar 29, 2006)

MichaelE said:


> In the Air Force we were always advised when purchasing a new (used) car to bring it by the Cop Shop and have the handlers run a dog through the vehicle to eliminate surprises at the gate going through a search.
> 
> A couple of my friends bought cars where residue was found.


Kind of a funny story that's similar. To make a long story short, my brother's ex took one their cars when she moved out. A few months later, after her run with the felonious sex offender was over and he was in jail, my brother got the car back.

He called the police over to check the vehicle so he wouldn't be surprised one day because she had tested positive for meth and and other stuff when she was arrested and figured that stuff had been in the car at the very least and didn't know where they may have put stuff.

Needless to say they hit all over the car and they found meth, in addition to some other cool things and an assortment of rings, not all of them for your fingers 

The best part was, under his lawyers advice he returned the collection of "rings" to her in court and told her and her lawyer she'd have to check with the police to see if there was any possibility of her getting her meth back


----------



## Castlemaid (Jun 29, 2006)

jocoyn said:


> Local issues with perceived misuse of a dog is no different than other concerns with possible police abuses and really should NOT be the topic of this dog forum as it is political in nature and should be managed in that arena.
> 
> Discussions on the reliability and training of detection dogs is a valid topic.


Let's all please keep this in mind if you wish to continue with the discussion.


----------



## Okin (Feb 27, 2013)

I am curious why the K9 they brought for the demo couldn't find the marijauna he hid, and what was at the bench he kept running over to. Do you think they use dogs still in training for demos?


----------



## martemchik (Nov 23, 2010)

Okin said:


> I am curious why the K9 they brought for the demo couldn't find the marijauna he hid, and what was at the bench he kept running over to. Do you think they use dogs still in training for demos?


I'm actually more shocked that a police officer brought MARIJUANA into a school.

The dogs I've seen, train with substitute substances that smell and look just like the real thing (various drugs) and those are the things they use for demos. All the demos I've seen have been very successful and the dogs easily found the hidden substance.


----------



## Okin (Feb 27, 2013)

martemchik said:


> I'm actually more shocked that a police officer brought MARIJUANA into a school.
> 
> The dogs I've seen, train with substitute substances that smell and look just like the real thing (various drugs) and those are the things they use for demos. All the demos I've seen have been very successful and the dogs easily found the hidden substance.


Maybe it was I didn't see it up close, that is what he said it was. It could have been a decoy of some type. It is strange there was one place the dog woudln't leave alone I wonder if there was something suspect there that seemed more pressing to the dog?


----------



## NancyJ (Jun 15, 2003)

Without being there it is hard to comment. If this is an inexperienced handler with an uncertified dog it could have been as simple as air currents moved the odor and it pooled near the bench. Buildings can be tricky that way. The dog may have been indicating on the strongest odor available to them but may not have been at source. Then they have to know how to work it out. 

A long time ago, I had a demo failure with a live find dog and even explained how lofting had lifted odor from a hot wall and it moved into the woods and created a scent pool there with a void between the dog and the area where she got hung up, but the people viewing it were unimpressed and I learned to set up your demos for success. With experience, you know what is going on and can work through it as can the dog and those are great training and testing scenarios and bad demo scenarios.

One of my first certification tests involved the master trainer set the hide high on the sunny wall inside a metal warehouse building. Every last dog (discussion after all had tested) climbed up high on a piece of construction equipment in the middle of the room, then looked at us like ?????. The trainer said "what's your dog telling you" and I said "he's got odor but it's not here" and she said "well, work it out" and it took awhile but we did. It appears the scent moved up the wall, and the ceiling then dropped down when it hit the shady side of the ceiling on the other side of the peak. Right over the equipment.


----------



## ladylaw203 (May 18, 2001)

Ironically I work at a school and just last week the local police brought in a drug sniffing dog to show the kids a demonstration about finding drugs. The officer hid a bad a marijuana, the dog kept running over to a different part of the gym. The officer literally pulled the dog over to where he hid the marijuana the dog completely ignored it. 

I will admit I am probably a bit jaded by my experience. 



>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Well the first rule of demos is that the degree that a dog screws over its handler is in direct proportion to the importance and number of those watching That being said. Hard to armchair quarterback. Was the dog experienced and nationally certified? How long did the handler let it set out? A properly trained dog works odor to source regardless of air currents. We set up bizarre and realistic scenarios in maintenance training in odor to ensure that a dog will work to source ALWAYS or as close as physically possible. Hard to say what happened without being there


----------

