# CA Trial Dog Evidence



## Samba (Apr 23, 2001)

I never thought about it much, I guess. It looks to me like the cadaver dog indication is being presented as evidence that a cadaver was once in a trunk.

I guess I just thought of dog indications as a probable cause thing whereby search could be initiated for physical evidence.

Never really thought about the indication itself being presented as evidence by the prosecution. How does that work? The defense is going to challenge the validity of this big time, I imagine!


----------



## ladylaw203 (May 18, 2001)

The alert of a human remains detector dog constitutes REASONABLE SUSPICION ONLY. Not probable cause. The alert can be used as evidence however. That is why I preach to civilians to properly train, proof, keep training records, obtain proper certifications etc. EVERY unattended death is treated as a homicide until the evidence proves otherwise.


----------



## Samba (Apr 23, 2001)

Very interesting seeing this presented as evidence. Obviously the details of the dogs training and performance overall are very important. Does this means some dogs present more "credible" evidence than others?


Wow...just heard dog evidence can overturn a case depending on the reliability of the dog.


----------



## DFrost (Oct 29, 2006)

Samba said:


> Does this means some dogs present more "credible" evidence than others?


Without question - yes. As Ms Rene said, document, document, document. I may have added a couple "documents" but only because it is extremely important.

DFrost


----------



## Samba (Apr 23, 2001)

Dog handler training is obviously more technical than I realized before. 

There was discussion today regarding videotaping the dog working a scene. In this case there was no video. What are the pros and cons of taping?


----------



## Jax's Mom (Apr 2, 2010)

Samba said:


> In this case there was no video. What are the pros and cons of taping?


A big con would be influencing a jury who may not know enough, or too much about canine behavior. 
I'd hope the accuracy of the dog and handler were explored if used as evidence.


----------



## JakodaCD OA (May 14, 2000)

I watched the court proceedings with the dog handler, I must say he held his own very well.


----------



## Samba (Apr 23, 2001)

http://http://www.tampabay.com/news/courts/article1165295.ece

Can someone explain what the article is saying? I must no longer be able to read for understanding!


----------



## TitonsDad (Nov 9, 2009)

I've been following the Casey Anthony case down in Florida. I know they're into the evidence of the trunk, garbage bag, air samples, whatever. Are there plans to present the cadaver dog's indication in this trial? I forgot what the judge ruled in preliminary trial.


----------



## TitonsDad (Nov 9, 2009)

Samba said:


> http://http://www.tampabay.com/news/courts/article1165295.ece
> 
> Can someone explain what the article is saying? I must no longer be able to read for understanding!


Link doesn't work.


----------



## Samba (Apr 23, 2001)

Today was Officer Forgey with K9 Gerus. Gerus indicated at car trunk and backyard.
Tomorrow Officer Brewer and K9 Bones. Bones also indicated in backyard.


----------



## Samba (Apr 23, 2001)

Florida Supreme Court tosses evidence detected by drug-sniffing dogs - St. Petersburg Times


----------



## jetscarbie (Feb 29, 2008)

Here is the live link.
Casey Anthony Trial: Courtroom View
The k-9 handlers will be on this morning. Court starts at 9am.
You can also search around on that site and find videos and pictures of yesterday's handler.
Amazing stuff.


----------



## DolphinGirl (Nov 5, 2010)

watching it now. Local news stopped regular programming to show this. I find it interesting.


----------



## Samba (Apr 23, 2001)

"Bones" resume' is impressive. Interesting listening to description of his searches.


----------



## NancyJ (Jun 15, 2003)

This is most assuredly going to be (already has been) an interesting study for some time to come. After our training in Culowhee and some of the info from the pretrial hearing we are tweaking our training log forms to clarify (from this date forward) terminology so we are on the same page as SWGDOG (we know what we mean but the term alert means different things to different people) Also throwing in some "double blind" testing for our records, though the bulk of our training is single blind.


LOL our first attempt at double blind resulted in the dog, wanting his reward, uncovering the training training aid. Way to go, Grim. [LOL not an agressive indication, he just pushed some boards aside with his nose]

Trial and pretrial info is all on youtube for downloading. I wish the sawmills case was because that one had some way interestng testimony as well. (And we knew the handler and the expert for the defense in that case-what a mess)


----------



## Mrs.K (Jul 14, 2009)

Why was the defense so focused on "was the dog deployed inside the house?"


----------



## jdh520 (Jun 4, 2011)

jocoyn said:


> This is most assuredly going to be (already has been) an interesting study for some time to come. After our training in Culowhee and some of the info from the pretrial hearing we are tweaking our training log forms to clarify (from this date forward) terminology so we are on the same page as SWGDOG (we know what we mean but the term alert means different things to different people) Also throwing in some "double blind" testing for our records, though the bulk of our training is single blind.
> 
> 
> LOL our first attempt at double blind resulted in the dog, wanting his reward, uncovering the training training aid. Way to go, Grim. [LOL not an agressive indication, he just pushed some boards aside with his nose]
> ...


Do you think k9 officers will start video taping their "real world" searches much more as well?


----------



## DolphinGirl (Nov 5, 2010)

Mrs K...I assume that Baez was trying to insinuate that there could have been an injury from a live body (possibly Caylee) and then cleaned up and bandaided in the house. I could be completely off on this though.


----------



## Samba (Apr 23, 2001)

I don't know. Maybe to point to incomplete search of the property?


----------



## Mrs.K (Jul 14, 2009)

Are residential houses generally surged by cadaver dogs?


----------



## NancyJ (Jun 15, 2003)

Houses ARE searched by cadaver dogs and that has caused some interesting problems - for example dogs trained on hair may indicate on drains etc.. Could be someone did not put a body down that bathtub but just has a lot of hair. We train around septic fields etc. so the dogs learn not to indicate on sewage. 

I think all that adds to the complexity - there is human decomp level to some amount everywhere - then you have old unmarked graves - of course they face the same problem with money and drugs (drug scent on money which is freely circulated everwhere) so it gets tricky. [once again Renee and David can speak to residual and trace amounts (two different things)]

I was surprised the one officer trained on semen, though.

The defense attorney is pulling all kinds of stupid tricks. 

Renee and David would have to answer the question about videotaping searches. I know most folks destroy any training videos they have because they don't want someone to pick everything apart as they will. My teammate was videotaped on an actual vehicle search (those darned helicopters have super-vision and it was a high profile case) and she slipped and touched the car to keep from falling (fortunately not where the dog indicated) and someone on another team called her out on it.


----------



## Mrs.K (Jul 14, 2009)

> Renee and David would have to answer the question about videotaping searches. I know most folks destroy any training videos they have because they don't want someone to pick everything apart as they will. My teammate was videotaped on an actual vehicle search (those darned helicopters have super-vision and it was a high profile case) *and she slipped and touched the car to keep from falling (fortunately not where the dog indicated) and someone on another team called her out on it.*


From *another *team?
That is beyond messed up. Seriously, she slipped and stopped her fall, how can anybody call her out on that, especially when that is not even the place where the dog indicated.


----------



## Whiteshepherds (Aug 21, 2010)

Mrs.K said:


> Why was the defense so focused on "was the dog deployed inside the house?"


The defense is going to do everything in their power to try and discredit the dogs and their handlers. He was probably trying to show that they didn't do a full search.


----------



## NancyJ (Jun 15, 2003)

Mrs.K said:


> From *another *team?
> That is beyond messed up. Seriously, she slipped and stopped her fall, how can anybody call her out on that, especially when that is not even the place where the dog indicated.


THAT team saw it on the news - and called *her* to say "you touched the car" actually I am glad they did because it jogged her memory that she was going to fall  --- No issue when someone points something out. That is how we get better. WHen I was working the car in training that was on uneven soil, I did the same thing. And she pointed it out to me.


----------



## Mrs.K (Jul 14, 2009)

jocoyn said:


> THAT team saw it on the news - and called *her* to say "you touched the car" actually I am glad they did because it jogged her memory that she was going to fall  --- No issue when someone points something out. That is how we get better. WHen I was working the car in training that was on uneven soil, I did the same thing. And she pointed it out to me.


Oh, okay. Now that is different, I thought they called her out on it as in "calling her out" in a bad way.


----------



## NancyJ (Jun 15, 2003)

Whiteshepherds said:


> The defense is going to do everything in their power to try and discredit the dogs and their handlers. He was probably trying to show that they didn't do a full search.


There is actually one dog trainer that a lot of people won't train with anymore because they say she has "gone to the dark side" by regularly testifying for the defense. Please do not ask me for any names either privately or publicly because THAT I won't say.


----------



## DFrost (Oct 29, 2006)

jocoyn said:


> Renee and David would have to answer the question about videotaping searches. .


I've been qualified and have been used as an expert in both state and Federal courts. For that reason, I will not comment on an active case. 

DFrost


----------



## NancyJ (Jun 15, 2003)

DFrost said:


> I've been qualified and have been used as an expert in both state and Federal courts. For that reason, I will not comment on an active case.
> 
> DFrost


I think the question was more a generic one about videotaping searches in general.


----------



## ladylaw203 (May 18, 2001)

NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER allow your dog to be video taped. Did I say NEVER? Not anywhere,anytime. If you go to a seminar and they try, leave. If you video for training,delete it immediately. The defense can get everything. That video will go to some paid "expert" witness for the defense and they will rip you and your dog apart. THis is the game. Our in car videos for narcotic dog searches are fair game and they come out from under rocks to testify as an expert witness.


----------



## ladylaw203 (May 18, 2001)

jocoyn said:


> There is actually one dog trainer that a lot of people won't train with anymore because they say she has "gone to the dark side" by regularly testifying for the defense. Please do not ask me for any names either privately or publicly because THAT I won't say.


 
Yep. TWO of them and that is true. RUN. 

Think how much I know about someone's dog after several days at a seminar. Cannot serve two masters.


----------



## ladylaw203 (May 18, 2001)

I was surprised the one officer trained on semen said:


> that is totally bizarre. right up there with hair,nails and cuticle clippings....
> 
> Yep, we do residences with property owner consent or a search warrant. Yesterday in Liberty county is an example. Bit of a fiasco.
> No mass grave folks... sigh
> anyway, dead dog in a bag and a freezer full of rotten meat. Two VERY good reasons to proof off of that frequently. Dog checked it,said no, moved on


----------



## ladylaw203 (May 18, 2001)

jocoyn said:


> This is most assuredly going to be (already has been) an interesting study for some time to come. After our training in Culowhee and some of the info from the pretrial hearing we are tweaking our training log forms to clarify (from this date forward) terminology so we are on the same page as SWGDOG (we know what we mean but the term alert means different things to different people) Also throwing in some "double blind" testing for our records, though the bulk of our training is single blind.
> 
> 
> LOL our first attempt at double blind resulted in the dog, wanting his reward, uncovering the training training aid. Way to go, Grim. [LOL not an agressive indication, he just pushed some boards aside with his nose]
> ...


 
Double blind is total BS. great for clinical trials but not for dog training. NEither the defense nor the cop knew what it meant in the evidentiary hearing. A blind means the handler does not know. A double blind means that the handler and the one administering the training does not know. stupid

The "alert" and Final trained response terminology has been floating around for a while in narc cases in various regions. Has not really become an issue here yet. Just more jargon for the courts that we have to deal with .


----------



## Mrs.K (Jul 14, 2009)

ladylaw203 said:


> Yep. TWO of them and that is true. RUN.
> 
> Think how much I know about someone's dog after several days at a seminar. Cannot serve two masters.


Yeah, I wouldn't want to train with anybody that would turn his back on us the first possible opportunity he/she has. 

What I don't understand, why would you do that, it's ruining your reputation as a trainer... :help:


----------



## ladylaw203 (May 18, 2001)

Money,ego,notariety, idiot, take your pick


----------



## NancyJ (Jun 15, 2003)

My own experience was a "dark side" person who took a video from the trial which was a RE_CREATION of the find (the handler should never have allowed) then pointing out how the handler was cuing the dog - well he may have been doing it inadvertenly when the tape was made because he knew where the find was when the tape was made, but did not when the actual find was made - that is why we do blind problems in the first place.

Then that person had the gall to take the tape (before the trial even began) and showed it to a class at a seminar as an example of what not to do.

The irony is that, (as I understand it) the defense expert's testimony was scratched as ther were some issue with her own resume, and the handler actually had made a number of significant finds despite his lax record keeping and his testimony was allowed on one of the two dogs.

DOCUMENT DOCUMENT DOCUMENT
BE HONEST
IF IT WAS NOT DOCUMENTED IT DID NOT HAPPEN


----------



## DFrost (Oct 29, 2006)

One only has to visit Fleck's or Nope's website to know who the latest defense ***** is. He keeps losing but they keep paying him. 

DFrost


----------



## jetscarbie (Feb 29, 2008)

ladylaw..thanks for the explantion of why NO videos. Makes total sense now.


----------

