# False alerts in sniffer dogs



## Ariel Peldunas (Oct 18, 2008)

Thought this article was especially apropos considering the recent thread on narcotics detection and false alerts ...and the reliability of working dogs in general.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-12-12/accuracy-of-police-sniffer-dogs-called-into-question/3726228


----------



## Christopher Jones (Feb 17, 2009)

The link is down. Heres another news report on it. 
I think this open season with detection dogs without first having PC is out of hand. When the polices own stats here show 80% false indications then it needs to be shut down. 
http://www.smh.com.au/environment/a...ng-four-out-of-five-times-20111211-1oprv.html


----------



## brad robert (Nov 26, 2008)

I think what the article points out is that random searches on people are a waste of time and need to be stopped and i think that will help this problem and the dogs need to be used on drug raids, bomb detection,prisons etc things like that not catching joe blow with a joint


----------



## Jon Harris (Nov 23, 2011)

this is strictly outside of the US
dogs are not used to sniff people as a rule. There are privacy issues involved.


----------



## brad robert (Nov 26, 2008)

Jon Harris said:


> this is strictly outside of the US
> dogs are not used to sniff people as a rule. There are privacy issues involved.


So over here we are having our privacy abused??

You can see them at the train stations sniffing people as they walk by hoping they might detect something.And walking the streets with them doing random inspections on people especially around the club and pub scene.

So is this normal behaviour for these types of units?


----------



## Jon Harris (Nov 23, 2011)

not in the departments ive worked

the exact circumstances will dictate if there is a violation or privacy issue. the random sniff is allowed but my departments have never made use of it.


----------



## Nancy Jocoy (Apr 19, 2006)

I can't speak for police searches but from the cadaver know the dogs are generally at least 90%-95% reliable with no more than a 2-3% false alert rate. These numbers are based on problems blind to the hander so no cueing etc. That is an expectation with training logs as well as certification testing.

I honestly think most problems with false responses are training and not the dog's intrinsic accuracy. 

Any way you cut it dogs are not 100% -- but, having done quality assurance for a number of years, I believe people are around 80% on inspections and document reviews. Look at TSA and tell me how good THAT is? The machines don't seem to do too well either. 

Also, there is such a thing as residual odor and dogs being so sensitive they hit actual source odor (as opposed to residual) but at a low threshold.


----------



## Jon Harris (Nov 23, 2011)

*This is from k9fleck.com
*
*He is one of the accepted authorities on dog sniff dos and don'ts
*

*PEOPLE SNIFFS:

Summary:*

The courts are divided on this issue. The majority of the courts have ruled that a canine sniff of a person is a search. 
Post September 11, 2001, there has been an increase of consent sniffs of people. These consent sniffs are either actual consent or implied consent sniffs. As examples, ticketing in public travel venues normally has an implied consent in the ticketing, stating that the passenger is subject to search, etc. Other implied consent sniffs are established by signing on property boundaries, such as all people entering are subject to search, etc. There has been dramatic increase in actual consent and implied consent people sniffs in airports, train depots, bus depots, mass transit stations, sporting events, concerts, shows, jails, prisons, government and private properties, etc.

A) *Doe v Renfrow* (631 F. 2d 91 (1980) Seventh Circuit

The Seventh Circuit ruled that walking up aisles and sniffing by a narcotic detector dog did not violate student’s rights. A dog sniff of students is not a search.

B) *Horton v Goose Creek Independent School District* (690 F. 2d 470 (1982) Fifth Circuit

The Fifth Circuit ruled that dog’s sniffing of students’ person was a search under the Fourth Amendment. Canine searches of students’ persons could not be justified without reasonable suspicion.

C) *B.C. v Plumas Unified School District* (192 F. 3d 1260 (1999) Ninth Circuit

The Ninth Circuit agreed with the Fifth Circuit. A dog sniff of a person infringes on a reasonable expectation of privacy and it constitutes a search. A random and suspicionless dog sniff search of a person is unreasonable.

D) *United States v Nunez* (19 F. 3d 719 (1994) First Circuit

A pat-down search by officers at an airport revealed packages located on the suspect’s midsection. A drug detection dog was requested for a sniff test of a person.

The only dog available at the airport was an “aggressive” alert dog. Since this was too dangerous on a person, a “passive” alert dog was requested. During the one hour it took for the dog to arrive, the suspect abandoned the drugs and he was arrested. The dog was used to search the person and alerted to the suspect’s midsection.

E) *United States v Kelly* (302 F. 3d 291 (2002) Fifth Circuit

Up-close sniffing of person at border by trained canine offends reasonable expectations of privacy and thus is a “search” under the Fourth Amendment; however,

Use of trained canine to sniff pedestrian entering the United States was a “routine border search” and therefore, was reasonable without any showing of individualized suspicion, though the canine made brief contact with pedestrian’s groin area.

Persons approaching an international border and checkpoint can reasonably expect to be stopped, questioned and possibly searched.

 F) *United States v Garcia-Garcia* (319 F. 3d 726 (2003) Fifth Circuit

Where border patrol agents wish to employ a drug sniffing dog at an immigration stop, they may do so only if it does not lengthen the stop beyond the time necessary to verify the immigration status of the vehicle’s passengers.

Drug sniffing dog’s alert to the undercarriage of a bus at the checkpoint provided probable cause to search the bus, but did not automatically provide probable cause to search the passengers.

Drug dog’s alert in the aisle of the bus provided reasonable suspicion the passenger seated where the dog alerted possessed the drugs that the dog sensed, and thus, the dog’s sniff and contact search when it indicated to the passenger by crawling under his seat and sniffing him more closely, and touching its nose to the passenger’s shoes and lower leg, was reasonable.

G) *United States v Reyes* (349 F. 3d 219 (2003) Fifth Circuit

Any seizure that occurred when bus driver, at request of border control agent, requested that passengers exit bus so that agent could inspect bus, was reasonable, inasmuch as dog’s alert to passenger compartment of bus constituted probable cause for canine search, and agent complied with Border Patrol policy in requiring passengers to exit bus.

Non-contact dog sniff of passenger, after dog alerted to passenger compartment of bus, and as all passengers exited bus at border agent’s request, was not a search, where dog was four to five feet away from passenger when sniff occurred, and agent did not intend to have dog sniff passengers as they exited the bus, but instead was waiting with dog with intention of putting dog inside bus after passengers exited.

Border agent had reasonable suspicion to briefly detain passenger after he exited the bus, where dog alerted to passenger as he exited bus.

Border agent had reasonable belief that the passenger might be armed and dangerous, as required for limited search of passenger for weapons, where dog alerted to passenger, agent knew, based on his experience and training, that weapons accompanied narcotics.
H) *United States v Kaniff* (351 F. 3d 780 (2003) Seventh Circuit 
The defendant was routed to a secondary U.S. Customs inspection area at the airport, after a trained dog independently alerted to the odor of narcotics from her person or from a box she was carrying. When the defendant walked down the jetway past the dog, the dog pulled away from the handler, began to “work the air” behind the defendant trying to trace the source of the scent of narcotics he detected, and eventually circled the defendant’s body before hitting a box she was carrying with his nose.
The dog handler did not allow the dog to finish his alert by sitting down because the handler was not in a position immediately to verify the source of the narcotics odor and did not want to reward the dog for a potential false alert. The court concluded the dog alerted to an odor of narcotics that was somewhere between his nose, traveler’s body, and the box that traveler was carrying.
I) *United States v Williams * (356 F. 3d 1268 (2004) Tenth Circuit
Initial meeting between officers, drug dog and defendant was consensual in nature and consequently did not require any reasonable suspicion.
Defendant was not seized when two officers and drug dog approached him outside bus terminal, and dog smelled defendant’s groin area and sat next to him indicating presence of drugs, where encounter occurred in relatively open space, defendant’s path of egress was not impeded, officers were not in uniform, officers did not display weapon, reasonable innocent person would not feel sufficiently accused for such an encounter to be seizure.
J) *United States v Jackson* (390 F. 3d 393 (2004) Fifth Circuit
Fact that bus passenger, on board when officers conducted a canine sniff of bus’s interior after giving passengers choice of remaining or disembarking during sniff, had to disembark to avoid encounter with dog, did not render encounter a seizure.
Reasonable suspicion justified a Terry pat-down of bus passenger who was inside terminal. Officers had conducted a canine sniff of bus’s interior and had obtained an alert to an empty seat, making it likely that the passenger was body-carrying drugs.
K) *United States v Hartwell* (436 F. 3d 174 (2006) Third Circuit
Search of defendant at airport checkpoint, during which defendant passed through magnetometer and had bag x-rayed followed by individual inspection by handheld wand-like magnetometer after setting off metal detector, was justified by administrative search doctrine.
The search was permissible under the (consensual) administrative search doctrine. Airport screenings of passengers and their baggage constitute administrative searches and are subject to the limitations of the Fourth Amendment.
The entire search procedure is rendered less offensive – if not less intrusive – because air passengers are on notice that they will be searched. A search where passengers were given advance notice that the search was to be conducted, and could elect not to be searched by deciding not to board the aircraft.
As several courts have noted, a right to leave, once screening procedures begin, would constitute a one-way street for the benefit of a party planning airport mischief and would encourage airline terrorism by providing a secure exit where detection was threatened. To avoid search, a passenger must elect not to fly before placing his bag on the x-ray belt.
​


----------



## David Frost (Mar 29, 2006)

The articles address an issue I've preached, and continue to preach in the line of detector dogs. Each dog has to be measured on its' own merit. which means, good solid records of both training and utilization. While the two are seperate, they must both be followed. Document your results and let the number speak for themselves. Since the dog is used to gain probable cause, they do not have to be perfect. They have to provide information that would make something more likely than less likely, better than chance. No where is perfection required. That said, a canine program should be able to track each individual dog and determine both it's proficiency in training and it's proficiency in utilization. Trainers can say anything and make all kinds of claims. None of that means a thing when you measure the results of an individual dog. If a department can not produce a record of; sniffs v. responses v. finds, then they are doing a disservice to canine programs everywhere. Just so I'm clear, using vehicles for an example, I'm saying a department should be able to count each time a dog is used to "sniff" a vehicle. Each time is one. Did the dog respond during that "sniff"? If the dog did respond, it's one. During the search, subsequent the response, did you find any drug evidence. (Physical evidence, drugs residue, paraphernalia etc) if yes, that is one. If no, that is zero. At the end of the month you can easily figure the number of times the dog was used to sniff. The number of times the dog responded, the number of drug finds subsequent the response and a percentage. You can show the percentage of vehicles the dog responded to, and you can demonstrate the percentage of "finds" subsequent responses. The information is available, clear cut and easily understandable, void of smoke and mirrors. When you talk like everything is a secret, people start to believe in smoke and mirrors. Each dog must be measured on its' own merit. Those that insist that perfection is obtainable in the utilization of working dogs are only deluding themselves and in my opinion, have lost sight of the reality of working dogs. 

Except in the confines of a prison, I think using a dog to search people is a big mistake and a very slippery slope. 

DFrost


----------



## Jon Harris (Nov 23, 2011)

David I couldn't agree more In the departments Ive worked in we did not do people sniffs either. That slope is very slippery and steep too. 

I use KATS system to tract my activities It is a little labor intensive but I also do that report realtime. As soon as the k-9 deployment is completed I fill out the KATS report. That was then downloaded daily to the chief's desktop for review. We were very careful on records and tracking.
Ive seen it done in a hap hazard method and not only are the records sloppy but you tend to see that bleed over into the dog's performance training and the handler's appearance. Sloppy in one area bleed over

I agree the records tell the story of strength and weaknesses. You touched on this in another thread where I posed a question mainly to switch subjects not so much as info for me.


----------



## Howard Knauf (May 10, 2008)

The use of canines to sniff for contraband (not drugs) at borders is still in use I believe. Just wondering how the drug case law affects that useage.


----------



## David Frost (Mar 29, 2006)

Also, and to address the title of the thread, the term "false response" in itself is a bug-a-boo. It's a term defense lawyers and trainers with something to sell use freely. I certainly believe poorly trained dog (dog teams) have false responses. There is however those times where the dog will respond and nothing is found during the ensuing search. I've always said there are three reasons for this happening; 1. The substance was still there but wasn't found. 2. It was residual odor 3. it's a training problem. This is where the totality of the circumstances have to come into play. What does the dog's (it is dog specific, not an indictment of a program) past performance over a specific period of time indicate. I always use one year as a sample. I produce documents for both training and utilization. Training: I can show this specific dog was 100% in training. I can show where negative tests (uncirculated currency, plastic bags, tennis balls, fabric softner etc) have been periodically conducted with no responses. Utilization: I produce the documents to show how many vehicles this dog sniffed. How many times the dog responded. How many times subsequent a response there was a drug find. (A find is defined as physical evidence). When numbers and percentages are assigned to these numbers, it makes a statement. You can win or lose based on those numbers. The totality of this information is what establishes a dog as proficient. It provides considerably more information that a certification. All that means is; on that day the dog performed as it should. A well kept training record is a history. I have a lot of confidence in a dog that demonstrates 95% proficiency in training over a year and 90% finds in actual situations. Keep in mind that almost all vehicle "sniffs" are now documented on film to coincide with the documents kept. No one works the road without a camera. It's not perfection, but it is probable cause. If I knew that for every one hundred rocks I turned over, I would find a dollar bill, I can assure you I would be be turning over a lot rocks. ( That was my testimony in a Federal court case by the way, when questioned about probable cause.) The totality of the information and that specific dog is what will either bury us and seen recently in a few court cases or enable us to hear those beautiful words; Motion to suppress denied. 

DFrost


----------



## Ariel Peldunas (Oct 18, 2008)

David Frost said:


> Also, and to address the title of the thread, the term "false response" in itself is a bug-a-boo. It's a term defense lawyers and trainers with something to sell use freely. I certainly believe poorly trained dog (dog teams) have false responses. There is however those times where the dog will respond and nothing is found during the ensuing search. I've always said there are three reasons for this happening; 1. The substance was still there but wasn't found. 2. It was residual odor 3. it's a training problem. This is where the totality of the circumstances have to come into play. What does the dog's (it is dog specific, not an indictment of a program) past performance over a specific period of time indicate. I always use one year as a sample. I produce documents for both training and utilization. Training: I can show this specific dog was 100% in training. I can show where negative tests (uncirculated currency, plastic bags, tennis balls, fabric softner etc) have been periodically conducted with no responses. Utilization: I produce the documents to show how many vehicles this dog sniffed. How many times the dog responded. How many times subsequent a response there was a drug find. (A find is defined as physical evidence). When numbers and percentages are assigned to these numbers, it makes a statement. You can win or lose based on those numbers. The totality of this information is what establishes a dog as proficient. It provides considerably more information that a certification. All that means is; on that day the dog performed as it should. A well kept training record is a history. I have a lot of confidence in a dog that demonstrates 95% proficiency in training over a year and 90% finds in actual situations. Keep in mind that almost all vehicle "sniffs" are now documented on film to coincide with the documents kept. No one works the road without a camera. It's not perfection, but it is probable cause. If I knew that for every one hundred rocks I turned over, I would find a dollar bill, I can assure you I would be be turning over a lot rocks. ( That was my testimony in a Federal court case by the way, when questioned about probable cause.) The totality of the information and that specific dog is what will either bury us and seen recently in a few court cases or enable us to hear those beautiful words; Motion to suppress denied.
> 
> DFrost


David, I'm not sure how I feel about your response. On one hand, given a dog trained consistently with negative tests (or with distractor odors, as I call them), blank searches and having a high proficiency rate on blind search problems, I would tend to believe a non-productive response (one that fails to produce any evidence of contraband) was due to one of the first two reasons you mentioned ...the substance was there and wasn't found or residual odor was present. However, in my experience both as a handler and a trainer, there are many dogs who are not trained to ignore distractor odors (plastic bags, gloves, etc.), odor anomalies (strange chemical odors or other odors that seem out of place) or human odor. I always try to give dog and handler the benefit of the doubt, but it's hard to ignore the obvious: the dogs have false response problems.

With the demand for detection dogs as high as it is today, it's not surprising that many dogs are rushed through training and aren't taught that the only odor they are looking for is the contraband ...not the materials the contraband is contained in, not the human who was handling the contraband and not another odor that seems out of place. Why is it so easy to train a dog to detect a new odor they have not been exposed to? Because dogs are masters at generalizing and picking up on subtle cues from the handler and the environment. 

I'm am not disagreeing with your post, but I suppose I took some offense to your statement that the term "false response" was something used by trainers with something to sell. For many years, I've been both a trainer and a handler. I've trained dogs for profit, but I've also been on the end of a leash using dogs in environments where their proficiency and reliability is extremely important. Maybe I have an appreciation for what handlers have to deal with on a daily basis, so I refuse to rush dogs through training and cut corners. But, I also refuse to put on my rose colored glasses and pretend every time a dog indicates, there must be contraband present. I'm a skeptic. I want to be sure my dog (and every dog I train) is clear that target odor is the only odor they need be concerned about. I've just seen too many dogs that haven't been trained to that standard and met too many handlers who are convinced their dog is always right and can't admit there may be a training issue.

Of course, we'll never know exactly what the issue is with the dogs in the article I cited. I expect with such a high rate of false/non-productive alerts, it isn't just that there is residual odor or that the contraband wasn't found. I just think being a bit more skeptical and aware of the issues we create in training can only help to better the final product.


----------



## David Frost (Mar 29, 2006)

Ariel Peldunas said:


> Of course, we'll never know exactly what the issue is with the dogs in the article I cited. I expect with such a high rate of false/non-productive alerts, it isn't just that there is residual odor or that the contraband wasn't found. I just think being a bit more skeptical and aware of the issues we create in training can only help to better the final product.


and - That is exactly why I say a dog's proficiency is dog specific. It can only be argued with the training records available for review. It's how the defense does it, we know that and we should be prepared. 

My comment about "something to sell" is deep rooted. It's seems it's always the vendor, the private trainer, that claim the police are the ones screwing up and only they have the answers. I'm a believer in SWGDog for a reason. Probably the same reason a lot of vendors and private trainers aren't particularly in favor it them. Of course there are always those former police trainers or former trainers of police dogs that are also now acting as experts for the defense. Funny thing is; some of them are also in the business of "assisting" police departments. 

If you got nothing else out of my post, I hope you understood about the significance of documentation and presenting the information for the dog involved. The rest is hype.

edited to add; It is specifically because of the defense experts, that I limit my conversation on public forums. They hide in some very mysterious corners. 

DFrost


----------



## David Frost (Mar 29, 2006)

Ariel Peldunas said:


> I would tend to believe a non-productive response (one that fails to produce any evidence of contraband) was due to one of the first two reasons you mentioned ...the substance was there and wasn't found or residual odor was present. .


I said as much. Can we discount the possibility of a false response? I submit no. However, with a well documented system, you can certainly point the finger at residual odor, being the most probable, or not. 

Somewhere in one of the threads, it mentioned a dog that was wrong 80% of the time. If that is true (which I'm not a fan of the mainstream media) then I would submit, there is a training problem. If on the other hand, the dog was correct 80% of the time, I would ask to be shown in what court 8 out of 10 would not be probable cause. 

DFrost


----------



## Gillian Schuler (Apr 12, 2008)

David, however long your posts are, I will always find time to read them with interest.

This is OT but the records you keep of each dog is what we were also instructed to do in sport. How many successful tracks, over various terrains and in various weather conditions and times of day. All to be documented.

How many successful retrieves, how many successful sendaways, how many successful baulking of the helper. Only then can we say the dog will 95% come out with a high result at a trial.

There is also the "Absicherung" in sport. I don't know the English translation but this is equivalent to "the dog has learnt the exercise, the dog "knows how to perform the exercise" but has he learned he "*has* to do it whatever the distraction?" This is where the so-called "Absicherung" comes in.

Sorry if I've disrupted the thread.


----------



## David Frost (Mar 29, 2006)

Gillian Schuler said:


> This is OT but the records you keep of each dog is what we were also instructed to do in sport. How many successful tracks, over various terrains and in various weather conditions and times of day. All to be documented.
> 
> How many successful retrieves, how many successful sendaways, how many successful baulking of the helper. Only then can we say the dog will 95% come out with a high result at a trial.
> 
> ...


You haven't. I think it shows how important documentation is. Using training aids for example. How can you tell if you have a problem, if you don't document your training. It goes back to another thing I tell handlers ( yeah, I know I tell them a lot) but you will never know how good your dog is until you find out what it can NOT do. 

DFrost


----------



## Lou Castle (Apr 4, 2006)

Thanks for posting those articles Ariel and Chris. You could flip a coin and get better results than these dogs are getting.


----------



## Lou Castle (Apr 4, 2006)

Jon Harris said:


> this is strictly outside of the US
> dogs are not used to sniff people *as a rule. * There are privacy issues involved. [Bold Emphasis Added]


Ever hear of "vapor wake" K−9's? In the vapor wake dogs it starts off as a dog following a trail of vapor to a person who is then sniffed. There are MANY situations in the US where a K−9's searching of people is permissible. If this rate of reliability was the case in the US, these dogs would be gone. It's just a matter of time until some activist judge decides to do it if we keep heading down this road. Especially when there is something available that prevents false alerts from happening.


----------



## Lou Castle (Apr 4, 2006)

David Frost said:


> Also, and to address the title of the thread, the term "false response" in itself is a bug-a-boo. It's a term defense lawyers and trainers with something to sell use freely. I certainly believe poorly trained dog (dog teams) have false responses. There is however those times where the dog will respond and nothing is found during the ensuing search. I've always said there are three reasons for this happening; 1. The substance was still there but wasn't found. 2. It was residual odor * 3. it's a training problem. This is where the totality of the circumstances have to come into play. What does the dog's (it is dog specific, not an indictment of a program)
> Keep in mind that almost all vehicle "sniffs" are now documented on film to coincide with the documents kept. No one works the road without a camera.
> DFrost*


*

"False response" aka "false alert" is a term of the industry to describe what's happening when a dog gives his trained alert, and there are no drugs present and there never were. It can happen with a handler supplied reward based system if the dog has become frustrated or has discovered that he can get his toy and some play with the handler by giving his trained alert, whether or not the odor is present. It can also happen if a handler intentionally or unintentionally cues his dog. I wish that the former never occurred but this is not a perfect world. 

If the problem is #1 (the substance was still there but wasn’t' found, then shame on the handler. It's his job to be so well trained that he will always find the hide. #2 (residual odor) should be revealed by an interview with the driver and people in the car but sometimes they don't want to talk and they don't have to. But #3 (a training problem) can be that the system in use allows for a dog that is frustrated, hungry, bored, tired, hungry, thirsty or otherwise "out of sorts" to get his reward, thereby giving him some relief. And there is the problem. 

It can be just a single team that is messed up or it can be that an entire program is flawed. 

Fact is there are MANY departments that don't have dash mounted cameras. And there are many circumstances where, even if they're in use the alert takes place out of view of the camera. And the camera has nothing to do with how well the dog is working and whether he false alerts or not. It may provide evidence afterwards.*


----------



## Lou Castle (Apr 4, 2006)

David Frost said:


> I said as much. Can we discount the possibility of a false response? I submit no. However, with a well documented system, you can certainly point the finger at residual odor, being the most probable, or not.
> 
> Somewhere in one of the threads, it mentioned a dog that was wrong 80% of the time. If that is true (which I'm not a fan of the mainstream media) then I would submit, there is a training problem. If on the other hand, the dog was correct 80% of the time, I would ask to be shown in what court 8 out of 10 would not be probable cause.
> 
> DFrost


One problem is when people *automatically claim * that their dog alerted on residual odor every time nothing was found. Sometimes it can be determined by an interview. Sometimes it shows up in the form of a sophisticated hidden compartment. But if there is no evidence or statements to support such an assumption, it should not be made.


----------



## David Frost (Mar 29, 2006)

Lou Castle said:


> Ever hear of "vapor wake" K−9's? In the vapor wake dogs it starts off as a dog following a trail of vapor to a person who is then sniffed. .



Yes, but apples and oranges.


----------



## David Frost (Mar 29, 2006)

Lou Castle said:


> _
> 
> If the problem is #1 (the substance was still there but wasn’t' found, then shame on the handler. It's his job to be so well trained that he will always find the hide. ._


_

While one would certainly hope so, none-the-less, in the real world it happens many more time than you would think. If you know the owner of Desert Snow, ask him. He's a CA guy. 

DFrost_


----------



## David Frost (Mar 29, 2006)

Lou Castle said:


> One problem is when people *automatically claim * that their dog alerted on residual odor every time nothing was found.


I said as much. If there is no physical evidence, it counts as a response, no find. Whatever a suspect may say in an interview might well be listed in the remarks. It is the totality of the training records and the proficiency of that specific dog that is in question. 

DFrost


----------



## Jon Harris (Nov 23, 2011)

The Desert Snow classes were some of the most informative classes I have ever been to
After those classes I decided I had not correctly searched a vehicle in 30 years 

Top notch stuff


----------



## Rashae Lamar (Feb 19, 2011)

hey jon where are you over here


----------



## Jon Harris (Nov 23, 2011)

Im in Bagram for now Will be heading up to the Pakistani border in a week or two


----------



## Jonathon Howard (Nov 11, 2010)

My friend is a dog handler for a government department that ran a training course for the state police department mentioned in the article.
He noted several flawed training techniques in this police sniffer dog program. 
He set up several times bags of white powder that had no indicating scent contained in it in visible places so the handler could easily see it. A large number of dogs indicated on these false items. These dogs are indicating on handler behaviour.
He also noted that they are trained on narcotics as well as marijuana. Marijuana sticks to everything. The dogs are going to indicate on anyone/anything that has been in the vicinity of someone smoking it.
I don't know what it is like in the US but where these dogs operate you would find multiple people that have copped 'secondary smoke' which would result in a 'false indication'


----------



## Lou Castle (Apr 4, 2006)

David Frost said:


> While one would certainly hope so, none-the-less, in the real world it happens many more time than you would think. If you know the owner of Desert Snow, ask him. He's a CA guy.
> 
> DFrost


This is just underlining the problem. Not only are there issues with unreliable K−9's but there are issues of poorly trained handlers. 



David Frost said:


> I said as much. If there is no physical evidence, it counts as a response, no find. Whatever a suspect may say in an interview might well be listed in the remarks. It is the totality of the training records and the proficiency of that specific dog that is in question.
> 
> DFrost


But there's a difference David. When someone * automatically claims * an alert on residual odor he's overlooking, or simply denying, the possibility that his dog is false alerting. Perhaps an example would help. Several years back I was certifying the narco dogs for several departments at the same time and we were using a city yard garage to place the hides in. There were about 5 dogs in the mix from 3 or 4 departments. All but one of the dogs had been in the field for a couple of years but one dog was testing for his first certification. The handler of the new dog had gone to a different trainer from the others to learn the narco work and had some slightly different ideas than the rest of the group. All of the experienced dogs did well, finding all the hides, performing their trained alerts, with no false alerts. But the new dog gave his trained alert on the carburetor area of a police motorcycle that was in the garage for maintenance/repairs. None of the other dogs had shown the slightest interest in that area. The handler, before I could tell him that there was nothing hidden there, rewarded his dog with his ball and then some play. I told him that there was no hide there and he replied, "Then it must be residual odor," I asked if he was going to hand search the area to see if, in fact, there was anything there. He said, "I trust my dog" and walked away. I hand searched the area but didn't find anything. I had all of the other dogs search the area and still, none of them showed any interest. I failed that team on the certification. He went on and was certified by one of the national organizations who do this. I've been told that some of them allow a certain amount of misses and/or a certain amount of false alerts. My certification allows neither. Missing or falsing means failure. 

While it's is possible that I had missed a sophisticated concealed compartment on the police motorcycle it's highly doubtful that there was one there. Not many cartels are moving large quantities a of drugs in hidden compartments on police motorcycles. . 

When people deny the possibility that their dog has false alerted but don't even bother to check, there's a problem.


----------



## Lou Castle (Apr 4, 2006)

Jonathon Howard said:


> My friend is a dog handler for a government department that ran a training course for the state police department mentioned in the article.
> He noted several flawed training techniques in this police sniffer dog program.
> He set up several times bags of white powder that had no indicating scent contained in it in visible places so the handler could easily see it. A large number of dogs indicated on these false items. * These dogs are indicating on handler behaviour. *
> He also noted that they are trained on narcotics as well as marijuana. Marijuana sticks to everything. The dogs are going to indicate on anyone/anything that has been in the vicinity of someone smoking it. [Bold Emphasis Added]


Handler cueing is a big problem for those who are working handler supplied reward dogs. Sometimes, even if they're not doing it, they'll be accused of it. In another thread I mentioned Steven Nicely who recently testified that a handler cued his dog to alert even though the find was made out of the view of the dash cam! Ensuring that handlers are not doing this should be part of every basic course and certifications as well. 

Anyone read  the Lit study (CLICK HERE) that focused on this? It's heavily flawed but has already been used against LE in at least one case.


----------



## David Frost (Mar 29, 2006)

Lou Castle said:


> This is just underlining the problem. Not only are there issues with unreliable K−9's but there are issues of poorly trained handlers.
> 
> 
> 
> But there's a difference David. When someone * automatically claims * an alert on residual odor he's overlooking, or simply denying, the possibility that his dog is false alerting. Perhaps an example would help. .



Lou, you and I are agreeing on this. If I am tracking all my responses and the results of the subusequent search, then I'll know if someone is making excuses. If physical evidence is found 90% of the time the dog responds in an actual situation, the arguement for residual odor is stronger. I never said it was an excuse. The 10% where nothing was found is not counted as a find. Now it becomes a matter of which is more likely; a false response or response to residual odor. The only claim that is made is; physical evidence was found 90% of the time. Then back to my comments about probable cause. I've very familiar with the alibis dog handlers/trainers use. 

Your example is a one time snap shot. My example is a look at a past year of the dog doing actual work. Which do you think is more predictive of behavior. 

DFrost


----------



## Jon Harris (Nov 23, 2011)

A little about Mr. Nicely

http://cnca.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/SteveNicely.pdf


----------



## Lou Castle (Apr 4, 2006)

David Frost said:


> Lou, you and I are agreeing on this. If I am tracking all my responses and the results of the subusequent search, then I'll know if someone is making excuses. If physical evidence is found 90% of the time the dog responds in an actual situation, the arguement for residual odor is stronger. I never said it was an excuse. The 10% where nothing was found is not counted as a find. Now it becomes a matter of which is more likely; a false response or response to residual odor. The only claim that is made is; physical evidence was found 90% of the time. Then back to my comments about probable cause. I've very familiar with the alibis dog handlers/trainers use.
> 
> Your example is a one time snap shot. My example is a look at a past year of the dog doing actual work. Which do you think is more predictive of behavior.
> 
> DFrost


I know that we're agreeing. It doesn't ALWAYS have to be a fight! Lol


Which do I think is more predictive of behavior? I think the two things, the topic of record keeping and what the handler did on my narrative, are, as you said earlier, apples and oranges. 

I think that it's a serious error that some national certifying entities allow for some false alerts and some misses. This leads a handler to think that it's not only perfectly all right but that it's common in the industry. A miss on narcotics is not life threatening (yes, of course there will be OD's and lives ruined), but it's nowhere near the threat that a bomb dog that misses is. A false from a bomb dog means a call out of the bomb squad. Cry wolf a couple of times and see how much faith they place in that dog.


----------



## David Frost (Mar 29, 2006)

Lou Castle said:


> Which do I think is more predictive of behavior? I think the two things, the topic of record keeping and what the handler did on my narrative, are, as you said earlier, apples and oranges.
> 
> .


I'm surprised. I would have thought a track record would be more predictive of behavior than a one-time event. Actually I mean I do think that. I don't see it as apples/oranges. 

If your suggesting there is such a thing as perfection in the working world, then, I guess that would be your view. It's not mine. 

DFrost


----------



## Brett Bowen (May 2, 2011)

Been following this thread and know that what I'm about to say is probably easier said that done and surely I am not the only one to think of this as I am not that smart (on the off chance I am that smart I copyright this idea). I also imagine it would take a really really really good dog. Putting the dogs safety on the side of a road aside.......why not have the dogs search independantly of the handler? It would be harder for the nicely's to sell that argument in court if the camera shows the handler 20 feet away from the dog as it's running around the car concentrating on finding dope.


----------



## David Frost (Mar 29, 2006)

I won't use the defense whore's name. However, he is a one-trick pony. If you contact Wendall Nopes he has an extensive file on this person. In fact, I highly recommend if you have this DW on your horizon in a court case, to contact Mr. Nopes. The DW has not been very successful. More than one judge has said they find his testimony lacking credibility. While we as K9 are often our own worst enemy, when good detailed training records are presented in court it makes testimony from someone lacking current experience and a background mostly hot air. Fortunately, courts do recognize and give credence to track records over one-time performances. Read the courts decisions where I suggested and see for yourself. As K9 law enforcement, I assure you, you never know who is next to go to the dark side. Often times, they use the excuse: I'm doing this to help law enforcement get better/do better/be stronger. To me, it doesn't pass the smell test. 

DFrost


----------



## Christopher Jones (Feb 17, 2009)

Lou Castle said:


> Handler cueing is a big problem for those who are working handler supplied reward dogs. Sometimes, even if they're not doing it, they'll be accused of it. In another thread I mentioned Steven Nicely who recently testified that a handler cued his dog to alert even though the find was made out of the view of the dash cam! Ensuring that handlers are not doing this should be part of every basic course and certifications as well.
> 
> Anyone read the Lit study (CLICK HERE) that focused on this? It's heavily flawed but has already been used against LE in at least one case.


 Whats your view on this search Lou?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hkw8KgZ_LhU


----------



## David Frost (Mar 29, 2006)

Were drugs found? It strikes me as funny that every case the defense whore of the month has testified in, such as the one Lou mentioned, drugs were found. What a coincidence. 



DFrost


----------



## Brett Bowen (May 2, 2011)

David Frost said:


> Were drugs found? It strikes me as funny that every case the defense whore of the month has testified in, such as the one Lou mentioned, drugs were found. What a coincidence.
> 
> 
> 
> DFrost


Funny how that works sometimes isn't it? The silver lining is, if the dog sniff is the thing that the defense is challenging, you must have a good case. The stop must have been good, the further detention waiting on the dog must have been good, the sniff is the last thing in the chain they have to challenge in an attempt to be successful. 

I think cops in general are our own worst enemy. I get assigned a lot of jail cases, it's obvious a lot of these guys haven't learned from going to court yet. Especially on DWI's, I have testified against our local DW that does nothing but DWI cases so many times, she won't catch me in any of her traps anymore. In fact, I like watching her hissy fit on cross when she's trying to lay trap after trap and I just don't fall for it.


----------



## julie allen (Dec 24, 2010)

Brett Bowen said:


> Been following this thread and know that what I'm about to say is probably easier said that done and surely I am not the only one to think of this as I am not that smart (on the off chance I am that smart I copyright this idea). I also imagine it would take a really really really good dog. Putting the dogs safety on the side of a road aside.......why not have the dogs search independantly of the handler? It would be harder for the nicely's to sell that argument in court if the camera shows the handler 20 feet away from the dog as it's running around the car concentrating on finding dope.


 
Greta searches independantly. We had to teach the alert with me out of sight, and it only took a couple times. I can send her into a building, a rubble pile, or a field with me completely out of sight, she will search, make a find, sit and bark until I come to reward. Of course we don't do this on the road, so would be different for narcotic dogs. But I know I am not influencing her alert, or that she is feeding off of anything I am doing. Does give me a lot confidence in my dog.


----------



## Nancy Jocoy (Apr 19, 2006)

Concerning the video.

As a civilian though I would have to ask, even if drugs were found, the dog gives probable cause to search the car and if the car would not have been searched were it not for the dog, then I could see the legal argument for getting it thrown out. That video was horrible. How many times did he stand at the window and stick his head in the car before the dog indicated for him?

So I have to wonder did the person throw the doobie out of the window? The dog kept pulling to the right rear in the grass.

I value the police for the most part but do not want to live in a police state where I can be searched without a clear valid reason. 

So when I have certified several times, including vehicles (NAPWDA-cadaver-and cadaver dogs cannot  be used to establish probable cause) - I repeadely hear heated arguments against even doing two passes (one clockwise, one counterclockwise) and have it beat in my head - never change your pace, play out the lead if the dog slows down, don't stop etc.


----------



## David Frost (Mar 29, 2006)

Brett Bowen said:


> Funny how that works sometimes isn't it? The silver lining is, if the dog sniff is the thing that the defense is challenging, you must have a good case. The stop must have been good, the further detention waiting on the dog must have been good, the sniff is the last thing in the chain they have to challenge in an attempt to be successful.


That's my experience as well. If they can't get the stop, or the length of the stop, the dog is the only thing left. It's also my experience, once the motion is suppressed, it generally results in a plea. Not always, but more often than not.

DFrost


----------



## Christopher Jones (Feb 17, 2009)

David Frost said:


> Were drugs found? It strikes me as funny that every case the defense whore of the month has testified in, such as the one Lou mentioned, drugs were found. What a coincidence.
> 
> 
> 
> DFrost


If they are going to fake a drug dog alert so they can search your car, chances are they are gonna leave a nice little package in your car to vindicate it. You see the slippery slope?
If you did illegal searches of everyones house you would find lots of goodies by which to vindicate it. I can put up an argument to torture a two year old child that would have half the people on this forum saying it should be done. Doesnt make it right and these are the things which seperate us apparently from Cuba, China and North Korea.


----------



## David Frost (Mar 29, 2006)

Doesn't answer the question; Were drugs found? I guess anything could happen. Fortunately, it's extremely rare.

DFrost


----------



## Howard Knauf (May 10, 2008)

David Frost said:


> Doesn't answer the question; Were drugs found? I guess anything could happen. Fortunately, it's extremely rare.
> 
> DFrost


 You forget the publics perception that all cops plant drugs?


----------



## David Frost (Mar 29, 2006)

Howard Knauf said:


> You forget the publics perception that all cops plant drugs?



ha ha, sorry, don't know how I could have forgotten that. 

DFrost


----------



## Gillian Schuler (Apr 12, 2008)

That's a new one on me - they don't do that in Switzerland :roll:

not much!!


----------



## Howard Knauf (May 10, 2008)

Gillian Schuler said:


> That's a new one on me - they don't do that in Switzerland :roll:
> 
> not much!!


 See. It's universal.


----------



## Christopher Jones (Feb 17, 2009)

Howard Knauf said:


> You forget the publics perception that all cops plant drugs?


 http://www.bing.com/search?q=police+officer+convicted+planting+drugs&form=SPLBR1&pc=SPLH
Not all Howard, but enough


----------



## Thomas Barriano (Mar 27, 2006)

Howard Knauf said:


> You forget the publics perception that all cops plant drugs?



Howard,

That's only in California, Florida and one or two big cities. I know it's true because I saw it on Miami Vice.
Where are you located Howard? ;-)

I know it for sure about the NYPD. I have a cousin who was on the NYPD....but wound up in jail instead.


----------



## David Frost (Mar 29, 2006)

I agree one is too many. What many people forget, law enforcement officers are drawn from the same labor pool everyone else obtains workers from. While most departments do an extremely good job of screening out the "bad" ones. One will, on occasion, slip through. A woman doctor, a peditrician actually, was just convicted of murdering a child. It was an inconvienence to her. I don't believe all doctors are killers. At any rate, there aren't a lot of them that will risk a career, the shame, possible jail time and the inevitable civil suit to follow for a couple of rinky dink arrests of some scrote that got under your skin for one reason or another. 
I can honestly say, I've never done it, never seen happen, never heard of it happening with anyone I ever worked with. Don't care if you believe me or not, but the thin blue line ain't that important to me, when it comes to something like that.
DFrost


----------



## Howard Knauf (May 10, 2008)

Thomas Barriano said:


> Howard,
> 
> That's only in California, Florida and one or two big cities. I know it's true because I saw it on Miami Vice.
> Where are you located Howard? ;-)


 Under my avatar its says Melbourne.....I think


----------



## Christopher Jones (Feb 17, 2009)

David Frost said:


> I agree one is too many. What many people forget, law enforcement officers are drawn from the same labor pool everyone else obtains workers from. While most departments do an extremely good job of screening out the "bad" ones. One will, on occasion, slip through. A woman doctor, a peditrician actually, was just convicted of murdering a child. It was an inconvienence to her. I don't believe all doctors are killers. At any rate, there aren't a lot of them that will risk a career, the shame, possible jail time and the inevitable civil suit to follow for a couple of rinky dink arrests of some scrote that got under your skin for one reason or another.
> I can honestly say, I've never done it, never seen happen, never heard of it happening with anyone I ever worked with. Don't care if you believe me or not, but the thin blue line ain't that important to me, when it comes to something like that.
> DFrost


Absolutley agree with you. Its human nature, some people do bad things. Personally whenever I have found myself answering questions I have never been treated with anything other than respect. But I do get pissed off at paying $300 fines for going 6 kms above the speed limit........


----------



## Howard Knauf (May 10, 2008)

Come to Florida and speed 5mph over all day....free. It's the law. You get one warning and after that it's a fine. Problem is...no one is keeping track of the warnings.

My county has the highest fines in the state. It's all about generating money. Sucks. It's the reason I don't write a ticket unless someone runs over my foot. Back to topic.


----------



## Thomas Barriano (Mar 27, 2006)

Christopher Jones said:


> But I do get pissed off at paying $300 fines for going 6 kms above the speed limit........


Chris

There's your problem . You didn't convert to MPH from KPH.
If you had of said I was only going 3.75 MPH over the limit
(less the 5 MPH) instead of 6 (more the 5) KPH. The cop would have let you go with a warning (unless you ran over his foot? )


----------



## David Frost (Mar 29, 2006)

Howard says go to FL for 5 over. Most Troopers I know give a minimum of 10 on the I Road. School zones don't get much of a break. There are already more that 10+ over than we can write in a day.

DFrost


----------



## Christopher Jones (Feb 17, 2009)

It used to be 10% above the speed limit here as that is the margin of error the standards allow for speedos to be out by. However to raise more money they have dropped the tollerances now and in some states its as low as 2-3 kph above the limit. Speedos can still be out by 10% by law tho. Its all about saving lives you know.....:^o


----------



## Brett Bowen (May 2, 2011)

David Frost said:


> I agree one is too many. What many people forget, law enforcement officers are drawn from the same labor pool everyone else obtains workers from. While most departments do an extremely good job of screening out the "bad" ones. One will, on occasion, slip through. A woman doctor, a peditrician actually, was just convicted of murdering a child. It was an inconvienence to her. I don't believe all doctors are killers. At any rate, there aren't a lot of them that will risk a career, the shame, possible jail time and the inevitable civil suit to follow for a couple of rinky dink arrests of some scrote that got under your skin for one reason or another.
> I can honestly say, I've never done it, never seen happen, never heard of it happening with anyone I ever worked with. Don't care if you believe me or not, but the thin blue line ain't that important to me, when it comes to something like that.
> DFrost


I think you were reading my mind, I was about to say the same.


----------



## Howard Knauf (May 10, 2008)

David Frost said:


> Howard says go to FL for 5 over. Most Troopers I know give a minimum of 10 on the I Road. School zones don't get much of a break. There are already more that 10+ over than we can write in a day.
> 
> DFrost


 It's written in the law here. I personally give 15 over. Still more than enough if you look hard. It's those guys doing 3-4 over ya gotta look at cause they fit the courier profile.:razz::razz: jk


----------



## Brett Bowen (May 2, 2011)

Howard Knauf said:


> It's written in the law here. I personally give 15 over. Still more than enough if you look hard. It's those guys doing 3-4 over ya gotta look at cause they fit the courier profile.:razz::razz: jk


For me it depends. If I am working STEP I lower my standards as all I'm doing is writing speeding, seatbelt, and intersection violations. On residentials I give 10, that's 30 percent. Freeway gets 17ish. I figure the closer you are to 80 the more you deserve.


----------



## David Frost (Mar 29, 2006)

Brett Bowen said:


> I think you were reading my mind, I was about to say the same.


Ya know, I think I might have been and I'm a little worried about you. ha ha.

DFrost


----------



## Jon Harris (Nov 23, 2011)

David , not only did he read your mind but I bet you are having a hard time keeping your hand down.


I agree about the planting. Never did it Dont know anyone that did. Absolutely not worth it. I always felt and taught you catch them right or you dont at all. There is always a next time. Cheating the system breaks us all down.

On traffic I mainly worked the interstate. 11 over before I looked at you unless I was on interdiction. Then it was much lower if i couldnt find anything else to stop someone I wanted to look at. The three and four over would get a warning of course but it gave me a chance to look.

In my area it was ford f 250s single driver, new plates, death grip on the wheel when I came by and a felony forest on the mirror among an whole host of other indicators


----------



## David Frost (Mar 29, 2006)

Jon Harris said:


> and a felony forest on the mirror


When I taught Pipeline/Convoy, I had some pictures of "felony forest". they were just unreal how many they could hang. ha ha. I also amassed quite a collection of FOP placards, PBA stickers and Support Your Local "name your favorite enforcer", ha ha.

DFrost


----------



## Thomas Barriano (Mar 27, 2006)

David Frost said:


> When I taught Pipeline/Convoy, I had some pictures of "felony forest". they were just unreal how many they could hang. ha ha. I also amassed quite a collection of FOP placards, PBA stickers and Support Your Local "name your favorite enforcer", ha ha.
> 
> DFrost


David,

WTF are you telling all the Support the El Paso County Sheriffs Department stickers I bought every year didn't help?


----------



## Jon Harris (Nov 23, 2011)

I got 134 black ice air fresheners out of one car. They were in everything under the floor mats seats air ducts you name it


----------



## Brett Bowen (May 2, 2011)

David Frost said:


> Ya know, I think I might have been and I'm a little worried about you. ha ha.
> 
> DFrost


You and me both!

I agree on "catching them right". I have let many folks walk when I couldn't do it the right way. I almost let one go a few weeks ago. Had an idea who this person was in the picture but didn't feel completely comfrotable with it. Had some folks tell me that the picture was good enough for them. But I did a little more homework, got mom and dad to identify their kid in the photo. Took another week, but was able to file a felony on them instead of throwing it in the circular file.


----------



## Nicole Stark (Jul 22, 2009)

Jon Harris said:


> I got 134 black ice air fresheners out of one car. They were in everything under the floor mats seats air ducts you name it


Something about that seems so utterly ridiculous. I think that'd give me a headache.


----------



## Jon Harris (Nov 23, 2011)

I should probably also mention there was 8 OZ of meth and 34,000 in cash where the passenger airbag should have been. Very well hidden until the dog started bumping the dash with his nose.
The driver who was dark tan turned considerably lighter when that happened.

end result 
federal charges on him and we sold the car at auction 
and confiscated the cash which he of course knew nothing about.


----------



## David Frost (Mar 29, 2006)

Jon Harris said:


> Very well hidden until the dog started bumping the dash with his nose.


You sure you weren't pushing his head against the dashboard?????????????? ha ha ha ha

Could it be -------- You really didn't have a reason to stop him. You probably held him too long. Didn't deploy the dog fast enough, cued the dog then, for some unexplained reason, kept pushing his nose into the the innocent empty air bag compartment, BEFORE, you pulled 8 oz of crank from one pocket AND 34K dollars from the other pocket and planted in my clients car. Remember now, you are under oath.


oh yeah, and off the record ----- good job.
DFrost


----------



## Christopher Jones (Feb 17, 2009)

David Frost said:


> ha ha, sorry, don't know how I could have forgotten that.
> 
> DFrost


I saw this story come up in a news website and thought it was quite valid. Its in TN, same place you live, has an innappropriate use of a K9 and the planting of drugs all caught on police dashcam. What was the chances? 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=enccAuRM8Yo#!


----------



## David Frost (Mar 29, 2006)

I remember the incident. Happened in 2007 I think. Seems the civil suit was dismissed, but I can't remember for sure. Of course the news played the dashcam video hundreds of times. While perhaps not looking all that good, it really never proved the officer planted drugs. I just don't remember how that played out. Had nothing to do with a dog responding on the vehicle though. He was stopped because of a domestic violence incidence. 

DFrost


----------



## Howard Knauf (May 10, 2008)

It's morons like that who give cops a bad name and defense attorneys reasonable doubt. You live and die by the video camera. Going to federal prison to give a guy a misdemeanor only supports the fact that they're moron. Hell, they already had a charge on him. What's the point in it?

Would be interesting to hear the rest of the story. I'm a cop and it still looks bad to me, nevermind a regular citizen.


----------



## David Frost (Mar 29, 2006)

Howard Knauf said:


> It's morons like that who give cops a bad name and defense attorneys reasonable doubt. You live and die by the video camera. Going to federal prison to give a guy a misdemeanor only supports the fact that they're moron. Hell, they already had a charge on him. What's the point in it?
> 
> Would be interesting to hear the rest of the story. I'm a cop and it still looks bad to me, nevermind a regular citizen.


I completely agree. I just can't remember what the outcome was of the civil suit. I'll have to ask around, someone is bound to remember.


----------



## Christopher Jones (Feb 17, 2009)

I dont know either, it just came up on a news site. 
I realise this type of stuff is not the norm and you cant stop people with bad intentions. Murder is illegal and has the death penality in some places, yet people still murder other people.


----------



## Lou Castle (Apr 4, 2006)

Christopher Jones said:


> caWhats your view on this search Lou?
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hkw8KgZ_LhU


Pitiful, just pitiful.


----------



## Amy Duthler (Oct 10, 2011)

This is just personal experience, but when driving home for Christmas, Missouri troopers stopped us and asked to search my car. I said no. Then they called the dog out. They walked that thing around my car at least 15 times, then said it indicated and searched my car. There wasn't anything in my car but suitcase full of clothes, two dogs and about 40 pounds of dog food. After seeing that happen I can't help but wonder if some dogs will alert if given a long enough time and repeated commands to find something, just because they think they are supposed to.


----------



## Christopher Jones (Feb 17, 2009)

Amy Duthler said:


> This is just personal experience, but when driving home for Christmas, Missouri troopers stopped us and asked to search my car. I said no. Then they called the dog out. They walked that thing around my car at least 15 times, then said it indicated and searched my car. There wasn't anything in my car but suitcase full of clothes, two dogs and about 40 pounds of dog food. After seeing that happen I can't help but wonder if some dogs will alert if given a long enough time and repeated commands to find something, just because they think they are supposed to.


So how does that sit with your consitution? I thought you guys had some pretty serious rights with searches and the like? 
I think a good way to sort out these false alerts and searches is simple. Everytime a search comes up blank the deaprtment has to pay $5000 to the victim of the search. Wouldnt take too long before they were more careful.


----------



## Amy Duthler (Oct 10, 2011)

Christopher Jones said:


> So how does that sit with your consitution? I thought you guys had some pretty serious rights with searches and the like?
> I think a good way to sort out these false alerts and searches is simple. Everytime a search comes up blank the deaprtment has to pay $5000 to the victim of the search. Wouldnt take too long before they were more careful.


Basically, they cannot search without permission or probably cause. The dog "indicating" creates probable cause. I wish they had some sort of compensation because we were in the cold, holding dogs for about an hour alongside a major interstate. Even if it was just for the gas I wasted because my car was running the whole time. The dog scratched my paint too. At least they didn't write me the speeding ticket?


----------



## Jon Harris (Nov 23, 2011)

I dont go around a vehicle more than twice without a real good reason. The dog has to show a lot of interest before Ill do it again.

once again Catch em right or dont do it


----------



## Christopher Jones (Feb 17, 2009)

Amy Duthler said:


> Basically, they cannot search without permission or probably cause. The dog "indicating" creates probable cause. I wish they had some sort of compensation because we were in the cold, holding dogs for about an hour alongside a major interstate. Even if it was just for the gas I wasted because my car was running the whole time. The dog scratched my paint too. At least they didn't write me the speeding ticket?


 I would think the fact that you said no was what did it. Only guilty perps dont want strange people going through their private possessions and car on the side of the road you know.......:roll:


----------



## Amy Duthler (Oct 10, 2011)

Christopher Jones said:


> I would think the fact that you said no was what did it. Only guilty perps dont want strange people going through their private possessions and car on the side of the road you know.......:roll:


I can understand why the called the dog out. Pearl white Lincoln with chrome going 20 over with out of state tags through an area with a serious meth problem, people who look like crap from working a 13 hour shift, sleeping for a few hours then hitting the road, a Presa, and a pistol in the car does suspicion make.

But the way they had that dog walk around a thousand times until it got tired and sat down makes me think they don't trust the dog to do its job right. Officer also mentioned to me that "most people don't say no." I figure that most people don't know they can say no. I've always said no before and it never was an issue, but that was in Minnesota where people tend to know their rights a little better.

But back on topic, those of you with detection dogs of any kind: If you walked your dog around a car or room with nothing in it and asked for him to search, how long would it take before he gave a false positive?


----------



## Amy Duthler (Oct 10, 2011)

Also, if anyone is curious, we don't do drugs, don't live with anyone who does, and I bought that car from an 85 year old man who had owned it for 11 years.


----------



## Christopher Jones (Feb 17, 2009)

Amy Duthler said:


> Also, if anyone is curious, we don't do drugs, don't live with anyone who does, and I bought that car from an 85 year old man who had owned it for 11 years.


Likely story. You must be a terrorist, meth cook. [-X
Anyway, you should be lucky. Next time you could be the victim of a SWAT raid to the wrong house http://motherjones.com/politics/2010/11/aiyana-stanley-jones-detroit


----------



## Amy Duthler (Oct 10, 2011)

They didn't let us get jackets out of the car and it was so cold outside after half an hour I was kind of hoping they found something so that I could go somewhere warm, even if it was jail.


----------



## David Frost (Mar 29, 2006)

Amy says: "I've always said no before and it never was an issue," 

Interesting. I wonder how many times it happens to the same people. 

To answer your question: "If you walked your dog around a car or room with nothing in it and asked for him to search, how long would it take before he gave a false positive?"

We generally go around the car one time, unless the dog shows otherwise. The times nothing is found in a search, subsequent a response by the dog, is dog specific and is documented. In other words, I could give you that answer for each dog. It is part of the information we provide during the discovery phase.

DFrost


----------



## Christopher Jones (Feb 17, 2009)

David Frost said:


> Amy says: "I've always said no before and it never was an issue,"
> 
> Interesting. I wonder how many times it happens to the same people.
> 
> ...


 Is there a minimun % of actual finds to indications you look for? And is there pressure on the dog and handler team if they get a few no finds in a row?


----------



## Howard Knauf (May 10, 2008)

Christopher Jones said:


> So how does that sit with your consitution? I thought you guys had some pretty serious rights with searches and the like?
> I think a good way to sort out these false alerts and searches is simple. Everytime a search comes up blank the deaprtment has to pay $5000 to the victim of the search. Wouldnt take too long before they were more careful.


 It doesn't sit well. 

So how do your gun laws sit with you? Glass houses and stones come to mind here. At least we have constitutional rights and a remedy for civilians whose rights have been stepped on.

It's a bad search. Bad handler. And bad officers if they know what's going on and condone this. If there's in car video Amy then get a copy and go see a lawyer. This kind of crap makes all of us look bad and feeds guys like Chris. I don't know which pisses me off the most.


----------



## David Frost (Mar 29, 2006)

Christopher Jones said:


> Is there a minimun % of actual finds to indications you look for? And is there pressure on the dog and handler team if they get a few no finds in a row?


Can I give you a finite number? No. The dog is used to gain probable cause. Therefore, if the percentage of finds subsequent the number of responses would be low enough to not provide that probable cause then it would be a problem. It is subject to court scrutiny. Despite past discussions about "training" and zero "false" responses, the reality is; there will be occasions, in the real world, when the dog responds and nothing is found. How often that occurs is certainly one of the most examined statistics in the use of detector dogs. It is, as I've said in the past, dog specific. Meaning each dog has to be measured on its' own merit. It's really a very simple statistic and should be available for every working dog in service. The number of times the dog is used to sniff a vehicle, The number of times a dog responds and the number of finds subsequent a response. You do a little goesintas and you have a pretty solid indications of how often nothing is found. 

As for the: "minimun % of actual finds to indications you look for?" Yes of course, we strive for perfection. The reality is that isn't going to happen so you strive for the highest percentage that is possible. Above all, if the percentage drops below what would be considered probable cause, then that dog should be removed from service. 

As for: "is there pressure on the dog and handler team if they get a few no finds in a row?"

That would depend on the overall percentage of that dog team. I would submit, a dog that maintains an 89% rate but had 5 consecutive searches, subsequent a response, with nothing found, was credible. 

An understanding of "probable cause" is requisite. 

DFrost


----------



## Howard Knauf (May 10, 2008)

To add....it's much like hunting. Some people are great at it, and some people suck. The gun is still good though.


----------



## Jon Harris (Nov 23, 2011)

in my current position a false indication is a real big deal. An alert shuts everything down for hours.

Today I searched over 40 vehicles. No alerts

So it is a good day. I little boring but a good one.

I always follow the 125% search rule Meaning I search 125% of the vehicle. Figure a circle and a quarter.

Falsing can be caused by many factors not the least the handler.

In your case from only the info given it seems that things were not done correctly.

You said no to the search Yes that is entirely within your rights. Few refuse the consent search when asked but they and you still have the right to refuse or revoke permission at anytime.

Ive had a few refuse the consent search, does it raise my personal suspicion? sure it does but that refusal is expressly forbidden to use as any part of probable cause to get the search.

This is not something i would have done. To me personally, if dog does not alert then i figure I picked the wrong car, not that I 100% picked the right one and I know better than the dog so Ill just keep searching until he alerts
Sort of a self fulfilling prophecy


----------



## Thomas Barriano (Mar 27, 2006)

Amy Duthler said:


> This is just personal experience, but when driving home for Christmas, Missouri troopers stopped us and asked to search my car. I said no. Then they called the dog out. They walked that thing around my car at least 15 times, then said it indicated and searched my car. There wasn't anything in my car but suitcase full of clothes, two dogs and about 40 pounds of dog food. After seeing that happen I can't help but wonder if some dogs will alert if given a long enough time and repeated commands to find something, just because they think they are supposed to.



Hi Amy

There's a point where "exercising your Constitutional Rights" 
meets common sense. If you knew there was nothing in the car
why not just consent to the search and be on your way? Instead you wasted an hour of your time, got your car scratched and froze your ass off? :-(
You didn't think that if you said NO that they'd just let you go on your merry way did you?
I'm usually in my mini van with four dog crates and all my 
equipment. Nobody EVER asks to search my vehicle even when I drive onto Military bases ;-)
for an hour


----------



## Lou Castle (Apr 4, 2006)

Amy Duthler said:


> Officer also mentioned to me that "most people don't say no." I figure that most people don't know they can say no.
> 
> But back on topic, those of you with detection dogs of any kind: If you walked your dog around a car or room with nothing in it and asked for him to search, how long would it take before he gave a false positive?


Running a dog around a car repeatedly is a sure way to frustrate him and that can easily lead to false alerts with a handler supplied reward system. You're probably correct that _"most don't know they can say no."_ And having someone invoke their constitutional rights, is not probable cause to search. 

The time it would take for a dog to false alert varies with the dog and how quickly he gets frustrated or bored and decides he wants his toy.


----------



## Lou Castle (Apr 4, 2006)

David Frost said:


> The dog is used to gain probable cause.
> 
> Despite past discussions about "training" and zero "false" responses, the reality is; there will be occasions, in the real world, when the dog responds and nothing is found.


Just because nothing is found does not mean that it's a false alert. A false alert occurs when the dog gives his trained response and the contraband was never there. Sometimes a dog will alert on residual odor (as when you catch a drug courier going back empty, for another pickup, but that's NOT a "false alert.") As I've said before, there are no false alerts with Donn Yarnall's drive based system of training detector dogs.


----------



## Lou Castle (Apr 4, 2006)

Jon Harris said:


> Falsing can be caused by many factors not the least the handler.


I've been saying this for quite some time now. It's inherent in the handler supplied reward system that most people use. That is why Donn's system takes the handler out of the search as much as is possible. 



Jon Harris said:


> You said no to the search Yes that is entirely within your rights. Few refuse the consent search when asked but they and you still have the right to refuse or revoke permission at anytime.
> 
> Ive had a few refuse the consent search, does it raise my personal suspicion? sure it does but that refusal is expressly forbidden to use as any part of probable cause to get the search.


It seems to me that since it _"raise[s your] personal suspicion"_ that it would be all−but−impossible for you not to use it as _"any part of probable cause."_ You're human, like the rest of us. I know what the law says, but I also know how it happens. Feelings are not probable cause. In fact, in this case, since Amy tells us that the _"Officer also mentioned to me that "most people don't say no."_ I think it's safe to say that he DID use her refusal as part of his PC; even if he did so unconsciously.


----------



## Lou Castle (Apr 4, 2006)

Thomas Barriano said:


> Hi Amy
> 
> There's a point where "exercising your Constitutional Rights"
> meets common sense. If you knew there was nothing in the car
> why not just consent to the search and be on your way?


Why should I worry about a fair and speedy trial, after all I didn't commit the murder. Yeah, makes perfect sense. 



Thomas Barriano said:


> Instead you wasted an hour of your time, got your car scratched and froze your ass off?


One should not be punished (time wasted, car scratched, ass froze) for the exercising of one's constitutional rights. Part of being in law enforcement is upholding the law. The Constitution is part of that law. 

Amy I strongly suggest that you get a copy of the dashcam footage (do it soon because most departments only retain them for a short time) and seek the assistance of an attorney. I also suggest that you make a formal complaint against the officer for not allowing you to get your jacket while you stood in the cold Missouri winter by the side of the road, and for the damage to your car. If you don't, he'll do it again to someone else. 



Thomas Barriano said:


> You didn't think that if you said NO that they'd just let you go on your merry way did you?


Absent probable cause, that's EXACTLY what should have happened.


----------



## David Frost (Mar 29, 2006)

Lou Castle said:


> Just because nothing is found does not mean that it's a false alert. A false alert occurs when the dog gives his trained response and the contraband was never there. Sometimes a dog will alert on residual odor (as when you catch a drug courier going back empty, for another pickup, but that's NOT a "false alert.") As I've said before, there are no false alerts with Donn Yarnall's drive based system of training detector dogs.


I completely agree. However, regardless of whose system is used, there are those occasions the dog will respond and nothing is found. The only way to account for those, regardless of what they are called (we use the term "unproductive response") is by keeping records that indicate the frequency as compared to a "find". A find being physical evidence. It is my experience the defense lawyer will be calling them "false alerts/responses/indications etc" regardless of what we call them. 

DFrost


----------



## Howard Knauf (May 10, 2008)

This is why I teach guys to search for seeds, shake or crumbs of crack etc. Anything to confirm the alert. Once that's done, look for the big stuff. The rest is icing. If no traces or measurable dope is found, interview the occupants well.


----------



## Christopher Jones (Feb 17, 2009)

Howard Knauf said:


> So how do your gun laws sit with you? Glass houses and stones come to mind here. At least we have constitutional rights and a remedy for civilians whose rights have been stepped on.


 We dont have the right to bear arms protected in our consititution like you guys do. Kinda sucks for sure. But I wouldnt get too cocky, as our gun laws are the model that alot of your states are pushing for. In some places you guys have gun bans in city limits, we dont. California has semi auto bans as well from what I have read? Our gun laws are pretty similar to Canadas actually, infact I have a Remington 7615 pump action 223 with 30 round AR mags, you cant have that in Canada as they have 5 round capacity laws on AR mags. 
But yeah, I would prefer Vermont, Arizona type guns laws....you win :grin:



Howard Knauf said:


> It's a bad search. Bad handler. And bad officers if they know what's going on and condone this. If there's in car video Amy then get a copy and go see a lawyer. This kind of crap makes all of us look bad and feeds guys like Chris. I don't know which pisses me off the most.


 What you said is pretty much all people like myself want to hear. We hope that good cops hate seeing that kind of shit as well and are willing to say so. Dont expect you to be able to stop it.


----------



## David Frost (Mar 29, 2006)

Howard Knauf said:


> This is why I teach guys to search for seeds, shake or crumbs of crack etc. Anything to confirm the alert. Once that's done, look for the big stuff. The rest is icing. If no traces or measurable dope is found, interview the occupants well.


As do we. We do not count an admission during an interview as a find, but it would be documented in the training record. A find is physical evidence only. No appearances of smoke and mirrors. It is either there or it isn't. 

DFrost


----------



## Thomas Barriano (Mar 27, 2006)

Quote: LC

Originally Posted by Thomas Barriano 
You didn't think that if you said NO that they'd just let you go on your merry way did you?

>Absent probable cause, that's EXACTLY what should have >happened.

NOPE, what happened when she declined permission to search is she got to wait while they got the K9 unit. Then there may have possibly been a little inadvertent handler influence to get
an indication. Which could be based on "why would anyone refuse a search if they aren't trying to hide something"?
I should be surprised that someone with a law enforcement
background would suggest bringing a complaint or law suit
against an active LEO but I guess looking knowledgeable is
more important to some people then others :-(


----------



## Connie Sutherland (Mar 27, 2006)

We can be less personal in disagreeing.


----------



## Howard Knauf (May 10, 2008)

I believe he said "should Have" happened. Which is correct. What actually happened is incorrect. See a lawyer, get paid.

Suggesting a lawsuit weeds out the riff raff. Why so surprised?. I HATE being painted with the same brush as the idiots. Anyone with proper morals and values would suggest the same.


----------



## Thomas Barriano (Mar 27, 2006)

Howard
Amy wrote:

"I can understand why the called the dog out. Pearl white Lincoln with chrome going 20 over with out of state tags through an area with a serious meth problem, people who look like crap from working a 13 hour shift, sleeping for a few hours then hitting the road, a Presa, and a pistol in the car does suspicion make." 

My reply to AMY was basically sometimes exercising your Constitutional rights is more trouble then its worth.

Lou sticks in his two cents AGAIN and tries to impress everyone with his vast experience and knowledge and suggests a lawsuit? Based on hearing ONE side of a story.
How much would a 20 mph over ticket cost, including
increased insurance premiums? It's like stepping into the cross walk when you see a car coming at 50 MPH. Yeah you have the right of way BUT that isn't going to stop the car from hitting you. I don't know maybe Lou is planning on becoming a
defense expert next. He's already giving free advise. Might as
well get paid for it?


----------



## David Frost (Mar 29, 2006)

Howard Knauf said:


> . I HATE being painted with the same brush as the idiots..


Amen.

DFrost


----------



## David Frost (Mar 29, 2006)

Thomas Barriano said:


> How much would a 20 mph over ticket cost, including
> increased insurance premiums?


I don't think anyone questioned the validity of the stop. It's the results of what she claims as a very poor canine deployment. I too agree there is only one side of the story. If it were me, I'd sure be looking into the second side. She inferred this has happened to her on more than one occasion. You have to admit, that, in my experience, if very unusual.

DFrost


----------



## Jon Harris (Nov 23, 2011)

I think we all agree that one the face of it and on the info given that the use of the canine is this matter was questionable

i say questionable because again we have only limited info.

As a LEO it is very often that we feel something, have a hunch, are suspicious, just get those hairs on the back of the neck. 
As a professional, which is what we are supposed to be, we stay within the law and as i said before
does a refusal to consent search raise the officer's suspicion? I think it does, I know it does mine. BUT as I also said that refusal can not be used as part of the elements to build probable cause for a search.

Id like to think I am professional enough to follow that guideline. Doesnt mean I am blind to other factors that I may or may not use in my decision making but the law is very clear on this point.

I would suggest that LEOs that can not filter out the things that lead to improper searches or arrests or any other action should look deep inside ans reflect on if they are in the right profession.

ill go back to what ive said before 
catch them right or dont do it at all


----------



## Lou Castle (Apr 4, 2006)

David Frost said:


> I completely agree. However, regardless of whose system is used, there are those occasions the dog will respond and nothing is found. The only way to account for those, regardless of what they are called (we use the term "unproductive response") is by keeping records that indicate the frequency as compared to a "find". A find being physical evidence. It is my experience the defense lawyer will be calling them "false alerts/responses/indications etc" regardless of what we call them.
> 
> DFrost


While the term "unproductive response," may be a useful phrase, it has been flipped around by a few to be "code" for what I've been calling "false alerts." A situation where a dog alerts but no contraband was ever present. This terminology is "court driven" and has been through several iterations. A few handlers do something that I mentioned in another thread, if nothing is found after their dog has alerted, they'll label it a "hit on residual odor" automatically., without further investigation. This ignores problems that may exist with the dog's handling or training and the possibility that the handler is doing the wrong thing by cuing his dog in order to get into a car to search it.


----------



## Lou Castle (Apr 4, 2006)

Thomas Barriano said:


> NOPE, what happened when she declined permission to search is she got to wait while they got the K9 unit.


First, I said _"that's ... what * should have * happened."_ [Bold Emphasis Added] 

Second, case law dictates that this wait for the K−9 unit not be longer than the 10-15 minutes it takes to write a citation. If it took longer than that for the K−9 to arrive, that fact should be part of the complaint. If it took longer, it's a violation of Amy's constitutional rights to be free from unlawful searches and seizures. 



Thomas Barriano said:


> Then there may have possibly been a little inadvertent handler influence to get an indication. Which could be based on "why would anyone refuse a search if they aren't trying to hide something"?


What you call _"a little *inadvertent *handler influence"_ has been described by Amy as the handler having the dog circle the car _"at least 15 times "_ before he alerted. You think that might be *"inadvertent??" * It's contrary to every established "best practice" that exists in working detection dogs anywhere. 

At another point, Amy wrote _"But the way they had that dog walk around *a thousand times until it got tired and sat down * makes me think they don't trust the dog to do its job right."_ [Bold Emphasis Added] Of course, this _"a thousand times"_ was an obvious exaggeration and she should be more accurate when making her complaint or her credibility will suffer. 

If a handler was to do this, based on, as you said, Amy's refusal to give consent for a search, it's ANOTHER violation of her 4th amendment rights! Don't take my word for this, remember that Jon wrote, _"... that refusal is expressly forbidden to use as any part of probable cause to get the search."_ 



Thomas Barriano said:


> I should be surprised that someone with a law enforcement background would suggest bringing a complaint or law suit against an active LEO


I know it's difficult but you might want to remember that Howard, who is an LE officer, suggested a lawsuit too. He wrote, _"If there's in car video Amy then get a copy and go see a lawyer."_ He later added, _"Anyone with proper morals and values would suggest the same."_ 



Thomas Barriano said:


> but I guess looking knowledgeable is more important to some people then others :-(


Thomas it would be sooooo nice if, just once, you could stick to the topic and stay away from the personal attacks. But based on history, it's probably never going to happen. 

When a police officer does the wrong thing, such a cuing his dog into a false alert so that he can search a car, or allows a refusal of consent to search to be part of his PC, it taints all law enforcement officers. I don't want that guy in LE at all. I've arranged for the firing of several such people. I guess it's OK for you to cover up for wrongdoing in others in your profession. It isn't in mine. But I guess honesty and integrity is more important to some people than others. 

As always Thomas, when you try to discredit my knowledge of dog training, you only reveal your own ignorance. I've been doing and teaching detection work of one kind or another for over three decades. You have told us are _"confused"_ by the _"jargon and theory"_ that appears on a website that discusses it. I'd suggest that you stick to sport work discussions Thomas. At least there you don't embarrass yourself too frequently.


----------



## Lou Castle (Apr 4, 2006)

Thomas Barriano said:


> Lou sticks in his two cents AGAIN and tries to impress everyone with his vast experience and knowledge and suggests a lawsuit? Based on hearing ONE side of a story.


That's how lawsuits work, They're based on one side of a story and, in the end, one side prevails. And AGAIN you conveniently forget that Howard made a similar suggestion based on the identical information. 



Thomas Barriano said:


> How much would a 20 mph over ticket cost, including increased insurance premiums? It's like stepping into the cross walk when you see a car coming at 50 MPH. Yeah you have the right of way BUT that isn't going to stop the car from hitting you.


Interesting that you compare invoking the law of the land to stepping in front of a speeding car. BTW the cost, spread out over the next few years, might rise to several thousand dollars. 



Thomas Barriano said:


> I don't know maybe Lou is planning on becoming a defense expert next. He's already giving free advise. Might as well get paid for it?


Based on what we've been told, this officer did the wrong thing. To prevent him from doing it again, he needs at the very least, some training. Since other officers were involved in this, perhaps the problem is systemic and it's NOT just this one officer. 

It's interesting that both Howard and David feel about the same way that I do on this and they don't want to be painted with the broad brush either.


----------



## Lou Castle (Apr 4, 2006)

David Frost said:


> I don't think anyone questioned the validity of the stop. It's the results of what she claims as a very poor canine deployment. I too agree there is only one side of the story. If it were me, I'd sure be looking into the second side. She inferred this has happened to her on more than one occasion. You have to admit, that, in my experience, if very unusual.
> 
> DFrost


I'd bet that this was caught on dash cam. Many state LE agencies have them these days. That would tell us a lot. But if the handler had the dog circle the car _"15 times"_ as Amy stated, it sure would lend credibility to opinions that the handler was cuing the dog. I wonder if he logged this search as a "false alert" or as an "unproductive response?" 

And I don't think it unusual at all. Her vehicle and contents fit the descriptors that people doing highway interdiction look for, as is the case with many of us.


----------



## Lou Castle (Apr 4, 2006)

Jon Harris said:


> I think we all agree that one the face of it and on the info given that the use of the canine is this matter was questionable
> 
> i say questionable because again we have only limited info.
> 
> I would suggest that LEOs that can not filter out the things that lead to improper searches or arrests or any other action should look deep inside ans reflect on if they are in the right profession.


I'm not sure that Thomas would agree with you that _"the use the canine in this matter was questionable."_ but I'll leave it to him. 

I don't think that an LEO who is purposefully doing the wrong thing, and we agree that circling the car _"15 times"_ fits that description, is going to _"look deep inside and reflect on if they are in the right profession."_ I think that people who are doing such things have decided that what they're doing is for some "higher good" and aren't going to let some pesky little thing like the US Constitution interfere with _their work. _ Rather they need to be rooted out and then kicked out; perhaps jailed and fined in some cases.


----------



## Jan Wensink (Sep 17, 2010)

Lou Castle said:


> Running a dog around a car repeatedly is a sure way to frustrate him and that can easily lead to false alerts with a handler supplied reward system. You're probably correct that _"most don't know they can say no."_ And having someone invoke their constitutional rights, is not probable cause to search.
> The time it would take for a dog to false alert varies with the dog and how quickly he gets frustrated or bored and decides he wants his toy.


I don't think that the false alerts described here have anything to do with the training system of the k9 team. If a handler runs a dog around a car many times he's either deliberately forcing the dog to alert or he's just stupid and poorly trained. If a dog false alerts when you search 1 car there is really a problem to be solved. A dog searching dozens of cars at a border check-point can build up frustration but 1 car.
When you search a car like that I suppose only the exterior is done. What is the chance of residual odor except on the doorhandles?


----------



## David Frost (Mar 29, 2006)

Lou Castle said:


> While the term "unproductive response," may be a useful phrase, it has been flipped around by a few to be "code" for what I've been calling "false alerts." A situation where a dog alerts but no contraband was ever present.


Lou, so far it appears to me you've avoided the point of my comments on documentation. I'll ask the question point blank, it's really a yes or no answer. The question is: " Is there ever an occasion where dogs trained in the system you speak of, ever respond on a vehicle, and no drugs are found subsequent the response?
Edited to add; If there is an occasion where nothing in found subsequent the response and the search --- what do you call that. What label do you place on that event?

DFrost


----------



## scott zimmerman (Dec 7, 2009)

Lou says: "Second, case law dictates that this wait for the K−9 unit not be longer than the 10-15 minutes it takes to write a citation. If it took longer than that for the K−9 to arrive, that fact should be part of the complaint. If it took longer, it's a violation of Amy's constitutional rights to be free from unlawful searches and seizures."

Not completely true. If the officer has articulate reasonable suspicion (ARS) based on HIS training and experience, to believe that the vehicle contains contraband, then case law has upheld detaining that person longer than it takes to conduct the business for the reason for the stop (ie. writing a warning/ticket); long enough for the closest available dog to respond. Of course, his ARS would be questioned and he would have to defend it and prove it at the motion to suppress hearing that is certain to take place before the actual trial. Absent ARS however, Lou is right. 

I agree with David, Jon, and Howard though- If it WAS a b/s dog deployment, then it should be addressed. We have one of the best tools available to LEO's in our toolbox that is supported by the general public and courts alike, and if we don't keep ourselves in check, we will lose that and be left with nothing. Just my 2 cents.

Have a Happy New Year everybody!


----------



## David Frost (Mar 29, 2006)

scott zimmerman said:


> Lou says: "Second, case law dictates that this wait for the K−9 unit not be longer than the 10-15 minutes it takes to write a citation. If it took longer than that for the K−9 to arrive, that fact should be part of the complaint. If it took longer, it's a violation of Amy's constitutional rights to be free from unlawful searches and seizures."
> 
> Not completely true. If the officer has articulate reasonable suspicion (ARS) based on HIS training and experience, to believe that the vehicle contains contraband, then case law has upheld detaining that person longer than it takes to conduct the business for the reason for the stop (ie. writing a warning/ticket);


You are absolutely correct. According to most USC decisions, the length of the stop is judged in direct proportion to the suspicion the officer can articulate. The more articulable suspicion, the longer the vehicle can be held. For legal precedence, I would certainly recommend Terry Fleck's website. You must register to gain access. It is the most comprehensive and in my opinion most complete legal website for working canine. He lists decisions that affects canine from all District Courts and the USC. Well worth the read. 

DFrost


----------



## David Frost (Mar 29, 2006)

Lou Castle said:


> While the term "unproductive response," may be a useful phrase, it has been flipped around by a few to be "code" for what I've been calling "false alerts." A situation where a dog alerts but no contraband was ever present. This terminology is "court driven" and has been through several iterations. A few handlers do something that I mentioned in another thread, if nothing is found after their dog has alerted, they'll label it a "hit on residual odor" automatically., without further investigation. This ignores problems that may exist with the dog's handling or training and the possibility that the handler is doing the wrong thing by cuing his dog in order to get into a car to search it.


Agree the term "unproductive response" is a label. It's not "code". By using a code, one could infer there is a hidden agenda. Using the term unproductive response is more descriptive of the event. There was a response, nothing was found. To automatically label it as "residual odor" is NOT factual. Labeling it a false response is NOT factual. Neither is factual, because lacking any substantive proof, all we know is; the dog responded and nothing was found during the search. This is why I say the records become crucial. If there was a drug find 9 out of every 10 times the dog responded, it would be easier to say the 1 time out of 10 the search subsequent the response was unproductive, could be residual odor. While it is still not fact that response was residual, which is more probable to the average person. Let the trier of facts decide on the frequency of "nothing being found" during a search. Let the court decide whether or not the response of that dog and only that dog, is credible enough to be considered probable cause. 

DFrost


----------



## Christopher Jones (Feb 17, 2009)

Just out of interest what do people think should be the puinshment for it if caught? Im thinking loss of job and couple of years in prison. If they are caught planting drugs as well I think life would be suitable.


----------



## David Frost (Mar 29, 2006)

Christopher Jones said:


> Just out of interest what do people think should be the puinshment for it if caught? Im thinking loss of job and couple of years in prison. If they are caught planting drugs as well I think life would be suitable.


I think they should be treated as any other criminal, caught and convicted. 

DFrost


----------



## Thomas Barriano (Mar 27, 2006)

Christopher Jones said:


> Just out of interest what do people think should be the puinshment for it if caught? Im thinking loss of job and couple of years in prison. If they are caught planting drugs as well I think life would be suitable.



Ninety days hand cuffed to....................................................


----------



## scott zimmerman (Dec 7, 2009)

David Frost said:


> I think they should be treated as any other criminal, caught and convicted.
> 
> DFrost


Which sadly, if treated like any other criminal in this country of late that means pay a fine, and several years of probation!


----------



## Christopher Jones (Feb 17, 2009)

David Frost said:


> I think they should be treated as any other criminal, caught and convicted.
> 
> DFrost


 They have the same rights and the same presumption of innocence, absolutley. They should however face a higher level of puinshment due to the extra issue of abusing their position of trust.


----------



## David Frost (Mar 29, 2006)

Christopher Jones said:


> They have the same rights and the same presumption of innocence, absolutley. They should however face a higher level of puinshment due to the extra issue of abusing their position of trust.


I don't have a problem with that. There are laws that expressly forbid the abuse of power. If arrested, tried and convicted, they should suffer the penalty of law. 

as you said, they (officers) still have the same protection under the law as every other citizen. While we as law enforcement officers do give up certain administrative rights, we still maintain those protections guaranteed by the Constitution to all Americans. I don't think there is an officer that participates on this board that support abuse of authority or intentional violations of a persons 4th Amend. rights. Which of course is what we have been discussing re; the search of the vehicle. 

DFrost


----------



## Lou Castle (Apr 4, 2006)

Thomas Barriano said:


> Lou
> 
> The only one I see saying how great Lou Castle is and how much experience and knowledge he has is LOU CASTLE


The only time I talk about my qualifications is when someone questions it, like now. If you want to see people talking about how great I am I suggest a visit to the testimonial page of  MY WEBSITE  where there are dozens of unsolicited testimonials. I'm pretty sure that I've not worked directly with anyone on this forum so I'd not expect to see anyone here making such comments. But people who have ACTUALLY SEEN MY WORK seem to think it's pretty good. You had the opportunity and declined. 



Thomas Barriano said:


> You haven't handled any K9 in over 20+ plus years according what you've posted and now you claim three decades of doing and training detection dog work? BS


It's just stupid to think that only someone who is handling a K−9 at this moment will have expertise in doing so or in training such dogs. I'd bet that David does not handle a dog right now either. He's moved beyond it and is now a trainer/instructor, as am I. FYI MANY trainers have not handled a dog for years, yet they still have the knowledge from those days and now they're trainers and/or instructors. This just seems like common sense to me but Thomas, you seem sorely lacking in this area. 



Thomas Barriano said:


> When anyone actually checks your references they're told the same thing. Minimal hands on experience with the Culver City K9 unit and even less with LAPD. You count on the unwillingness of anyone connected with the Culver City PD to go on the record given your penchant for Internet drama and obsessive posting. It's OK you keep giving all the active full time LE and Detection dog handlers the benefit of your vast knowledge.


Sorry all, for the redundancy, but when Thomas AGAIN brings this up, I must respond with the facts or someone might actually believe his off-topic, mindless rantings. I was a handler for my department for 5 1/2 years until my dog retired. Then I was the in−house trainer for the next 15 years or so until I was injured and no longer able to serve in that capacity. About a year after that was the first time that the department hired someone outside to do the maintenance training. I did that training from 1979 until about 1996. 

My _"over three decades of doing and teaching detection work"_ started in 1979 and continues to today. I still do seminars and work with many people who are working handlers for both law enforcement and SAR. My seminar count stands at 54 and I have three scheduled so far for next year. Just to let folks know about your expertise relative to mine, Thomas would you care to fill us in on your vast experience and training resume? I'm sure that since you've challenge my qualifications that folks will be amazed to hear how many seminars you've done, how many dogs you've worked with and how many private clients you've had. I'm pretty sure that your answers will be something like this, "0 seminars [single digits] on the dogs you've worked with and 0 private clients." So while you continue to try to discredit me because you can't stand up to me in an on-topic conversation, we learn that it's YOU who are the empty suit! 

_"nwilling to go on record?"_ The only people who are unwilling to go on record at CCPD are those who are telling lies about me. There are at least four officers (sergeants now, all of them) who I trained as K−9 handlers who ARE willing to go on record and tell the truth about my service there. I'll happily supply their names to anyone who wants to verify my service there. Just PM me. Donn Yarnall, former founder and head trainer for both the LAPD narcotics K−9 unit and the patrol K−9 unit is also willing to answer questions about me, my history at CCPD and my qualifications. My department started our K−9 unit just before LAPD did and he knows my history. Contact him directly via his website. www.k9copsonly.com We met shortly before he started that unit and remain in contact to this day. 

Why you mention my _"experience [with] LAPD"_ is a mystery, since I've never worked there and have never claimed to do so. But like so much of your information, it's confused and just plain wrong. 

As to _"internet drama"_ ... YOU are the one who, in this thread, as well as quite a few others, started the drama with your repeated personal attacks. As has happened so many times before, I kick your ass when we discuss the topic, you run out of logic and reason and then you turn to ad hominem attacks, like this one, because you are looking so bad in the on−topic discussion. YOU start the drama and then maintain it until and unless you're stopped by moderators who delete your comments and/or lock the threads. Trying to blame me for it is absurd. The familiar pattern is 1. you start it. 2. I ignore the first few attacks and then when it continues 3. I respond in kind, as now. 

And now back to our regular program ............


----------



## Lou Castle (Apr 4, 2006)

Jan Wensink said:


> I don't think that the false alerts described here have anything to do with the training system of the k9 team. If a handler runs a dog around a car many times he's either deliberately forcing the dog to alert or he's just stupid and poorly trained. If a dog false alerts when you search 1 car there is really a problem to be solved. A dog searching dozens of cars at a border check-point can build up frustration but 1 car.


I don't think that the training system had anything to do with this false alert either. I agree that a handler who runs his dog around a car repeatedly, as this one seems to have done is, is either trying to force an alert or is _"stupid and poorly trained."_ 



Jan Wensink said:


> When you search a car like that I suppose only the exterior is done. What is the chance of residual odor except on the doorhandles?


There is a chance for residual odor on an exterior search at any place that someone who has handled contraband has touched. If there is an interior hidden compartment that is now empty, a good dog may pick up residual odor at a door crack. People whose hands bear trace amounts of contraband open and close doors, trunks and hoods. They touch gas filler covers, window glass, windshields and virtually any other part of the exterior of the vehicle. Usually wind and minute particulate matter in the air will scour minor amounts of scent from most of the exterior, but there are always places that the wind misses.


----------



## Lou Castle (Apr 4, 2006)

David Frost said:


> Lou, so far it appears to me you've avoided the point of my comments on documentation. I'll ask the question point blank, it's really a yes or no answer. The question is: " Is there ever an occasion where dogs trained in the system you speak of, ever respond on a vehicle, and no drugs are found subsequent the response?
> Edited to add; If there is an occasion where nothing in found subsequent the response and the search --- what do you call that. What label do you place on that event?
> 
> DFrost


I'm not avoiding anything David. You've never asked this question before or you'd have gotten an answer. In the recent thread, "Narcotic Detection Training." I wrote, in post #188, _"David in the case where this method was used by a state agency. Ten handlers worked for over three years doing nothing but highway interdiction without a single false alert. *There were a few alerts on residual odor * and each time there was a sophisticated hidden compartment located in the vehicle. They just got them "going the wrong way." Quite a few money seizures were made too, one of them $1.6 million."_ [Bold Emphasis Added] 

In post #208 I responded to your question, _"... Your use of the term "residual odor" indicates there were in fact occasions where no tangible drug evidence was found subsequent a response. I can, dog specific, catagorically state the percentage this happens. It's part of our presentation in court. Is that information available on the dogs you reference?"_ when I wrote this, *"The presence of "a sophisticated hidden compartment located in the vehicle is tangible evidence of drug transportation. *_ It's been presented in court for convictions and for seizures too. Of course those guys have that information. They present it in court too, when it's necessary and appropriate."_ [Bold Emphasis Added] 

The only really new question in your post is what do people who use this drive based system call this when it happens? When one of these dogs alerts and nothing is found it's recorded as simply "dog indicated the presence of source odor − unable to locate the drugs." 

David when you were working the field did you ever walk up on a car and smell burnt marijuana coming from inside it but were unable to find any drugs because they weren't there? The occupants had smoke before they'd gotten into the car and you were smelling the odor emanating on their clothes. I'd bet that this has happened many times. Were you wrong in thinking that you had smelled the odor? Would a dog who alerted on these people be wrong? Would you call that an "unproductive response?" I would not.


----------



## Lou Castle (Apr 4, 2006)

scott zimmerman said:


> If the officer has articulate reasonable suspicion (ARS) based on HIS training and experience, to believe that the vehicle contains contraband, then case law has upheld detaining that person longer than it takes to conduct the business for the reason for the stop (ie. writing a warning/ticket); long enough for the closest available dog to respond. Of course, his ARS would be questioned and he would have to defend it and prove it at the motion to suppress hearing that is certain to take place before the actual trial. Absent ARS however, Lou is right.
> 
> I agree with David, Jon, and Howard though- If it WAS a b/s dog deployment, then it should be addressed. * We have one of the best tools available to LEO's in our toolbox that is supported by the general public and courts alike, and if we don't keep ourselves in check, we will lose that and be left with nothing. *


Thanks for adding this info. To know if this officer did have such facts, we'd have to hear his side. But even with this the courts don't allow a detention of the motorist past a "reasonable period of time." They've never specified what this means but have said that much longer than about 45 minutes is "too long." The time limit is not _"long enough for the closest available dog to respond."_ Sorry but I can't cite the cases on this. If you do have the cases and I'm wrong, please correct me. I don't stay as up to date on this sorta case law as I much as I used to. 

I couldn't agree more with the last part of your statement that I put in bold.


----------



## Lou Castle (Apr 4, 2006)

David Frost said:


> Agree the term "unproductive response" is a label. It's not "code". By using a code, one could infer there is a hidden agenda. Using the term unproductive response is more descriptive of the event. There was a response, nothing was found. To automatically label it as "residual odor" is NOT factual. Labeling it a false response is NOT factual. Neither is factual, because lacking any substantive proof, all we know is; the dog responded and nothing was found during the search. This is why I say the records become crucial. If there was a drug find 9 out of every 10 times the dog responded, it would be easier to say the 1 time out of 10 the search subsequent the response was unproductive, could be residual odor. While it is still not fact that response was residual, which is more probable to the average person.


The term IS a code among those folks who are doing the wrong thing and cuing their dogs to false alert or not training properly so that their dogs false alert on their own. Those folks do have a hidden agenda and the reason that it's hidden is that they know that what they're doing is both morally wrong and illegal. How rare is it? Can't tell you but we have here (Amy's situation) what seems to be a case of it. 

We can know far more than _"nothing was found."_ The presence of sophisticated hidden compartments, especially if they contain large sums of money is very strong evidence that the dog found residual odor. I'd call that _"substantial proof."_ 

I've never said that record keeping is not essential. It is. But it does not tell the entire story. People who are doing the wrong thing, will falsify their records. They'll omit searches like Amy's, so it doesn't even show up in their stats. David Do your dogs do highway interdiction? How would you record the search of Amy's car (absenta the apparent cuing of course)? And here's the problem with the label. In order for it to be called an "unproductive response" an interview would have to reveal that at some time that contraband (in this case narcotics) would have had to be present at some point. So let's believe Amy that she's neither a user nor a mule and that her dope smoking nephew did not toke up (dating myself there, lol) when he borrowed the car earlier that day. Your dog has alerted, the handler has called it, it's on the dash cam and there is no contraband in the car and there never has been. What do you enter in your training records? How many of these do you allow before you begin to suspect that there's an issue of either a dog false alerting or a handler doing the wrong thing? 



David Frost said:


> Let the trier of facts decide on the frequency of "nothing being found" during a search. Let the court decide whether or not the response of that dog and only that dog, is credible enough to be considered probable cause.
> 
> DFrost


I think that it's a serious mistake to leave this decision to the courts alone. A trainer has a duty to ensure that the dogs he trains are finding drugs and doing it in a manner that meets all the legal requirements so as not to violate anyone's rights. If you allow the courts to make the decision as to whether you're doing it right or not, you lose all control. Far better for the trainer to make sure that the job is being done properly than to allow the court to make that decision. Far better to not give the defense attorneys any ammunition than to play games with percentages and allow them to throw around the "false alert" questions, as those who use a handler supplied reward system are doing. It would be better if you could tell the court when asked what your percentage of finds v. searches is, to simply say "my dog only alerts when narcotic odor is present?" When you have this degree of reliability you don't have to do the "percentage tap dance" in court and hope that the court finds that the dog was indeed, reliable. 

One court has taken the absurd position that a dog only has to be 54% correct in order for its alert to constitute probable cause. While this is not widely accepted it's still out there and you can be sure that some handlers are training to that standard.That's only slightly better than _flipping a coin, _something that no court would allow. Some courts, notably those in Florida and California are on the verge of ruling that if dogs hit on "residual odor" they are deemed to be "not reliable" and therefore their alert will not constitute PC. You can be sure that if this happens, other states will follow. If we don't police this ourselves the courts will impose oppressive rules on us that knock K−9's out of the PC business.


----------



## Lou Castle (Apr 4, 2006)

There's a problem in the industry and instead of trying to fix it some people are applying temporary patches as the leak occur. They're making up code words that allow for unscrupulous handlers to cover up the fact that they're doing the wrong thing. They're ignoring the fact that the entire system is broken, unreliable and that it allows for false alerts − indications where no contraband has ever been present as well as complete misses. Along the way it allows for handlers who lack integrity to cue their dogs into false alerts, violating the rights of people they've stopped. 

In the NNDDA certification one "negative response" aka a false alert is allowed and the dog can still certify. 

In the NAPWDA certification the minimum acceptable level required to pass is 91.66%. That's just slightly above a rate of 1 in 10. 

The USPCA certification allows for a 20 point deduction for a "false alert." A dog can false alert or miss a hide and can still pass. 

These national organizations used by many, if not most, LE agencies for their certification allow for false alerts, a situation where a dog alerts and no source odor was ever present and the dog can still pass the certification. Nationwide courts accept a fairly high rate of false alerts and "unproductive responses" and still deem a dog to be "reliable." This vividly demonstrates a huge problem in the system. Especially when there is a training method that exists where there are no false alerts or misses. The certification used by the originator of the drive system, fails a dog that either fails to make all the finds or false alerts even once. 

Records were originally kept NOT for court purposes but for the purpose of managing the K−9 unit. Since then it's been perverted by lawyers as a way to place the ability and training of the dogs into question in court. That's done with dogs trained with a handler supplied reward system because of the relatively high rate of false alerts and cues from the handler, whether inadvertent or not. 

If a dog is reliable, you can demonstrate 10 times out of ten that the dog indicates ONLY on the odor of drugs. They will not indicate on any other odors. Throughout the dog's life you have thousands of those tests in training where the handler does not know where the source is hidden. If your certs are truly testing the dog's worthiness and reliability then you have recordation of the dog's reliability. Then it goes to the integrity of the handler. That is the reason for instructor monitored training and frequent testing/ certs. 

Let me tell you a true story. Folks are free to disbelieve it; but if you're working a dog with a handler supplied reward system, you do so at your own peril. 

In a large western state each county decides whether or not it will follow the federal law that says that the alert of a "reliable K−9" constitutes probable cause. Many counties in that state still require handlers to get a search warrant after such an alert. In those counties the K−9's alert is only one−of−many reasons given to a judge when applying for the search warrant that there is an expectation that narcotics will be found if the search warrant is granted. There are many narco detection dogs working this area and they all use a handler supplied reward system. When they have a case and take the stand they are hammered by the defense attorneys as to their record keeping, their dog's percentage of reliability, his percentage of false alerts, his percentage of unproductive responses, his training, his education and his experience. Expert witnesses are often called in to place all of these things into question. 

Into this arena a few years back came a handler and K−9 trained with the drive system. He got together with the local district attorneys and they set up a meeting with local judges, politicians, public defenders and DA's from the three local counties. The handler briefed the group as to the details of this system. Then he did a demo where the judges hid the training aids and the handler searched for them. This was done blind, the handler had no idea where the hides w placed. The K−9 nailed all the hides and some of them were trace amounts. 

The judges were so impressed by this work (and they had seen demos put on by the other handlers in the area) that they decided that THIS DOG TEAM AND THIS TEAM ALONE was exempted from the strict search warrant requirement. 

The first time he was put on the stand after this demo the DA had him explain the system to the court to get it on the official record. Since then, both the DA's and the public defenders stipulate to the handler's expertise and the fact that the dog is reliable. Then they are able to work on the details of the case. The dog is no longer an issue as he is with cases with dogs trained with a handler supplied reward system.


----------



## David Frost (Mar 29, 2006)

Lou Castle said:


> David when you were working the field did you ever walk up on a car and smell burnt marijuana coming from inside it but were unable to find any drugs because they weren't there? The occupants had smoke before they'd gotten into the car and you were smelling the odor emanating on their clothes. I'd bet that this has happened many times. Were you wrong in thinking that you had smelled the odor? Would a dog who alerted on these people be wrong? Would you call that an "unproductive response?" I would not.


Unless physical evidence was found, yes it was an unproductive response. My experience of smelling the odor, would be documented in the comment section. In our program, there is only one definition for "find". There must be physical evidence.


----------



## David Frost (Mar 29, 2006)

Lou Castle said:


> *"The presence of "a sophisticated hidden compartment located in the vehicle is tangible evidence of drug transportation. *_ It's been presented in court for convictions and for seizures too. Of course those guys have that information. They present it in court too, when it's necessary and appropriate."_ [Bold Emphasis Added]
> 
> .


Actually, absent an ION scan or similar confirmation, what you have is presumptive evidence of drug transportation. Compartments are used for things other than drugs. Tangible is factual. A compartment, while it is factual evidence of a hidden compartment is not factual evidence of drugs being present. I would submit those handlers you speak of are doing what you cautioned against about claiming every thing is "residual odor". In this situation, ours would be marked as an unproductive response. The comments section would reflect, a response and the results of that search were the hidden compartment. From that we will make the presumption. When dealing with probable cause ..... well you know.

DFrost


----------



## David Frost (Mar 29, 2006)

Lou says: "Do your dogs do highway interdiction? How would you record the search of Amy's car"

Almost all of our work is on the highway. It would be recorded as an unproductive response. 

Lou says: "In order for it to be called an "unproductive response" an interview would have to reveal that at some time that contraband (in this case narcotics) would have had to be present at some point."


Absolutely not. I can't say what it was. I can't factually say it was false, and I can't say it was residual. There isn't (as this story was told) any evidence one way or the other. That is why you measure each dog individually. Let that dog's record speak for itself. If a person, not the case in Amy's story, said drugs had been present, that would be indicated in the comment section. Absent any physical evidence, it's still an unproductive response. 

I won't belabor the point. I think if any handler says drugs or residual odor has been found every time their dog has responded (if they work them more than twice a year), is not being factual in their reporting. I think anyone that says they can make sure a dog is never wrong, that every response is accounted for and explainable, in actual situations is a snake oil salesman. We do between 3 and 5 thousand vehicle "sniffs" annually. Yeah, we find some stuff and money as well. We've presented cases from the lowest level General Sessions, 6th Circuit and the USC. Like every other K9 Unit in the country, none of my dogs are perfect. I'm not talking training, I'm talking real world, rubber meets the road, rain or shine working. Training is easy - it's why I still do it. It's where the work is done that makes the difference. 

DFrost


----------



## Joby Becker (Dec 13, 2009)

I BOUGHT a car with a hidden compartment...I hid an extra fire arm in there...(under permit) or money that I was taking from my job to the bank for a night time deposit...

no drugs in that car ever...when I owned it...


----------



## Thomas Barriano (Mar 27, 2006)

"The only time I talk about my qualifications is when someone questions it, like now. If you want to see people talking about how great I am I suggest a visit to the testimonial page of MY WEBSITE where there are dozens of unsolicited testimonials. I'm pretty sure that I've not worked directly with anyone on this forum so I'd not expect to see anyone here making such comments. But people who have ACTUALLY SEEN MY WORK seem to think it's pretty good. You had the opportunity and declined."

Bull SHIT

I tried to enter a SAR seminar and you had the sponsor block me because you said "I didn't respect you"
I tried to enter another seminar in April (in Denver) for you to demonstrate your "100% fool proof out protocol" where I'd provide dogs, decoy(s) and you declined since it was a "pet dog
audience" Your counter offer was to meet at 5-6 AM the next morning and you wanted signed waivers and a $$$$ insurance policy and written permission from the land owner and the local PD. When I said I'd just show up with a cell phone camera and shoot some video YOU contacted the sponsor and the local PD and said I was going to show up with "biting dogs"

The rest of your post isn't worth my time and energy to reply.
My opinion that you are a blowhard internet trainer who thinks he is an expert because he rehashes and regurgitates other peoples work is an OPINION, not a personal attack.
It's amusing NOT that now we're supposed to contact specific people at Culver City PD and not just personnel or the current
commanders for your resume LMAO


----------



## Jon Harris (Nov 23, 2011)

Warning: As I write this there may be an attempt at humor as that is the way I write and is my personality: end of warning.

David has it right. There is no question that every dog and handler team will make mistakes. We are not perfect , at least not yet regardless of how much we try.

The national cert organizations realize and accept this. This is the reason for allowing a very small percentage of mistakes and not disqualifying the team. In fact even the Federal Govt. ( IE the US Army and the regs and guidelines that cover all working dog teams in the military have a measure of mistakes worked in the system. Again no one in perfect, well except maybe the dog god.

I worked highway interdiction almost exclusively and had stops and alerts where I was sure I had just missed it. Where interview showed that My dog was right but physical evidence was not present. I use the secret code that only certain dog handlers and drug interdiction agents use. I's known as Unproductive Response. ( but you need to secret decoder ring to figure it out)
It is a secret code that means- well- the response was unproductive. 

Actually it is the best way to categorize any response that does not result in physical evidence being discovered.

Lou, what state and case are you talking about? Just interested as Id like to read about it where only one dog team trained a certain way was considered by the courts as reliable and exempt from search warrant requirements. And are you speaking about vehicle searches or something else.

Not attacking, just interested in reading it.

Maybe I can learn something if I can open my mind a bit, but then again I am the handler of a substandard sickly dog that nobody wanted. Trained under the table by unscrupulous trainers that clearly lowered their standards for well for what I haven't figured out yet. And that substandard dog and handler were clearly passed through certification by 4 different organizations because they felt sorry for the handler with the sickly substandard dog that nobody wanted.

I guess I just cant figure out why anyone would have ever used that dog and handler for any searches. When the SO had their own dog but called this substandard team. When the state had a dog in the area but still called this team. When three other police departments chose to call and continued to call this team. When adjoining counties would call this team.

Maybe it was because they trusted the team and knew if it alerted there was a good chance ( probable cause) that contraband would be found OR they trusted the team would not put their officers and themselves at risk of destroying credibility by forcing and faking an alert. That if the dog alerted and nothing was found everyone involved was professional enough to not fake falsify plant or in any other way violate the trust of the public of themselves.

I don't know. Just can't understand it.
Sure seems strange to me that a department would hire an officer and take up a personnel slot knowing the officer would be gone for at least a year on the hopes when he returned he would be Their K-9 officer with the sickly unwanted dog. But that was clearly another underhanded deal. That's probably why the officer is carried as reserve since the Texas laws have changed and there are no more unpaid regular full time officers. And since the city council would probably frown on paying a local officer while he was out of the country for a year making a million a day. Yep reserve status seems like it would work.

Hey but I'm just saying

I'm sure there is another reason for all of this. You, Lou, probably have the inside scoop on it.

Sorry for the rant,

The point is David has and uses the best term, label, code.
Unproductive Response because that is exactly what it is and no interview changes that, no mater what is said. Possibility of residual odor as per statements of subject of traffic stop? Yep that goes in the notes but the alert was still Unproductive.


----------



## Laney Rein (Feb 9, 2011)

Why is it now every thread that has anything to do with detection, Lou has to bring in his Donn Yarnall's shredding theory/reward. If he wants to discuss this method I suggest he quit interrupting every other thread with insinuations and start a thread of his own. This is getting a litt. And he still didn't answer David's point blank question.le old.


----------



## Lou Castle (Apr 4, 2006)

David Frost said:


> Unless physical evidence was found, yes it was an unproductive response. My experience of smelling the odor, would be documented in the comment section. In our program, there is only one definition for "find". There must be physical evidence.


Do you consider the presence of a sophisticated hidden compartment to be _"physical evidence"_ of the transportation of narcotics after a trained dog alerted on the compartment? Would you not impound a car that contained such a device and present it as evidence in court? 



David Frost said:


> Compartments are used for things other than drugs.


Such as? 

If the dog has hit on the sophisticated hidden compartment that _ should be _ a sign that the dog has located the source of narcotics odor. If it was used for transporting something else, the dog *should not hit on it. * 

Let's be clear here, I’m not talking about a hidden compartment that is behind an air conditioning grille let where you pop out the plastic louvers and there's the dope. I'm talking about * sophisticated * compartments (and I've used that word almost every time I've talked about them). I'm talking about things like holes cut into box frames of the vehicle and then the openings are welded shut. I'm talking about hydraulically controlled compartment covers where there are five layers of protection for the activation switch that must be done in sequence to open the compartment. I'm talking about welded shut dummy objects (false engine components) on the firewall of cars. I'm talking about compartments that have been sealed with silicone sealer containing drugs that have been placed into triple layers of heat sealed bags. 



David Frost said:


> Tangible is factual. A compartment, while it is factual evidence of a hidden compartment is not factual evidence of drugs being present.


You think this is the case if one of your dogs has hit on the compartment? 



David Frost said:


> I would submit those handlers you speak of are doing what you cautioned against about claiming every thing is "residual odor".


David if you can't see the difference between _"claiming *everything * is 'residual odor"_ and stating that a sophisticated hidden compartment that a dog has hit on is evidence of the transportation of narcotics, I don't hold much hope for the future of this discussion. Try this David... get an ounce of marijuana and place it into a wooden box. Let it sit overnight. Take it out and then run a dog on it. If the dog does not hit on it, there's something really wrong. This is what you'd call an _"unproductive response."_ and is EXACTLY the situation that is causing a massive problem in the courts in Florida. That is NOT an _"unproductive response"_ to the dog. He's done as he's been trained, he's alerted to the presence of marijuana odor. It's unproductive only in that no narcotics were found, but the presence of a hidden compartment may lead to the upset of a cartel. I'd call that pretty productive. 



David Frost said:


> Lou says: "Do your dogs do highway interdiction? How would you record the search of Amy's car"
> 
> Almost all of our work is on the highway.


This really didn't answer my question. Perhaps the difference is semantics, but perhaps not. In California the "highway" is defined as "is a way or place of whatever nature, publicly maintained and open to the use of the public for purposes of vehicular travel. Highway includes street." That definition would include the alley behind my home but I'd not call that "Highway Interdiction." There's a significant difference between _"work[ing] on the highway"_ and doing "highway interdiction." So you really haven't answered my question. 



David Frost said:


> (Amy's situation) It would be recorded as an unproductive response.


And therein lies the problem. Although I asked the question "absent the apparent cuing of course) the fact is that it's apparent that this handler cued his dog into a false alert. This was in fact *A HANDLER INDUCED FALSE ALERT * but you say that you'd use the code phrase, _"unproductive response"_ covering up the fact that no drugs were ever present and yet your dog alerted. This is a major issue with a handler supplied reward system. I'm sure that he would either not log the search at all or call it an "unproductive response." And he'd be covering up the fact that he violated Amy's right to be free of an unlawful search. While you may be using the term properly it allows for others to do the wrong thing and remain undetected. 



David Frost said:


> I won't belabor the point. I think if any handler says drugs or residual odor has been found every time their dog has responded (if they work them more than twice a year), is not being factual in their reporting.


I've said that from the start. 



David Frost said:


> I think anyone that says they can make sure a dog is never wrong, that every response is accounted for and explainable, in actual situations is a snake oil salesman.


That's what I'd expect from someone who uses a system that allows for false alerts and cuing a dog. The system you prefer is easily abused and when it happens it's sometimes difficult to detect. It's responsible for what's going on right now in Florida where courts are close to denying the use of K−9's as PC for a vehicle search. If the drive based system has been properly applied there is no reason for a dog to false alert and so they don't.


----------



## Lou Castle (Apr 4, 2006)

Joby Becker said:


> I BOUGHT a car with a hidden compartment...I hid an extra fire arm in there...(under permit) or money that I was taking from my job to the bank for a night time deposit...
> 
> no drugs in that car ever...when I owned it...


Can you describe this hidden compartment Joby? Perhaps again I need to clarify. I've NEVER said that the presence of a hidden compartment, sophisticated or unsophisticated indicates the transportation of drugs or other contraband. WHAT I HAVE SAID IS that the presence of a sophisticated compartment *PLUS * the indication of a trained dog IS evidence of such transportation.


----------



## Lou Castle (Apr 4, 2006)

Earlier I wrote,


> The only time I talk about my qualifications is when someone questions it, like now. If you want to see people talking about how great I am I suggest a visit to the testimonial page of MY WEBSITE where there are dozens of unsolicited testimonials. I'm pretty sure that I've not worked directly with anyone on this forum so I'd not expect to see anyone here making such comments. But people who have ACTUALLY SEEN MY WORK seem to think it's pretty good. *You had the opportunity and declined. * [Emphasis Added]





Thomas Barriano said:


> Bull SHIT


Thomas, please show us somewhere that _"I talk about my qualifications"_ and someone has not questioned them. The rest of your post has nothing to with this statement. It seems to be aimed at my last statement that you quoted so let's look at the facts there. 



Thomas Barriano said:


> I tried to enter a SAR seminar and you had the sponsor block me because you said "I didn't respect you"


Thomas you're a liar. You were blocked for several reasons. First is that it was a seminar ONLY for SAR and you're not involved in that. Second was your propensity, as we've seen here, for disrupting discussions. I showed the seminar giver some of your emails and she decided that she didn't want you at her seminar. It was entirely her decision, not mine. You've not been on topic here for quite some time now, instead you've been focused on me, rather than the discussion or even my comments in the discussion. There's no reason to believe that you'd behave any differently at one of my seminars. There's no reason to allow you to disrupt a seminar when others have paid for the privilege of attending. 



Thomas Barriano said:


> I tried to enter another seminar in April (in Denver) for you to demonstrate your "100% fool proof out protocol" where I'd provide dogs, decoy(s) and you declined since it was a "pet dog audience"


Thomas, once again, you're a liar. First, I've never said that any of my protocols are, as you state _"100% foolproof."_ I have said that they've never failed me, but those two statements are nowhere near the same. If you can't tell the difference you're an idiot. 

Second, you're a liar because *I *didn't _"decline"_ your attendance, Once again *the seminar giver did, *as he clearly stated in an email he sent you and CC'd to me. HE told you that the seminar was for _"pets only."_ His seminar, his terms. 

Third, you're a liar because you did not offer to supply _"decoy{s}"_ as you've just said. You said, very clearly that you'd be bringing _"[your] decoy."_ Singular. One. Uno. Solo. My protocol calls for the use of AT LEAST two decoys and for dogs with issues (as yours seemed to be according to statements in your emails) FOUR should be used. 



Thomas Barriano said:


> Your counter offer was to meet at 5-6 AM the next morning and you wanted signed waivers and a $$$$ insurance policy and written permission from the land owner and the local PD. When I said I'd just show up with a cell phone camera and shoot some video YOU contacted the sponsor and the local PD and said I was going to show up with "biting dogs"


My offer was to give you about four hours of my time at no charge. I had no obligation to make this offer, I just wanted you to see the work first−hand. It would not have been appropriate at the seminar for several reasons. 

The seminar giver wanted only pets (not dogs training in the biting sports) at his seminar. 
His insurance did not cover such dogs. 
His insurance did not cover doing such training on his property. 
The seminar was for pets and working a biting dog with an issue would have no application to them or their needs. 
The seminar giver was addressing the needs of HIS clients. None of them work dogs that compete in biting sports.

It's interesting that you think it's appropriate to dictate to someone that you will attend a function that they are putting on, but you learned that it was not going to happen. The police were contacted due to this attitude of yours. Had you shown up and refused to leave at the request of the seminar giver, you'd have been arrested for trespassing on his property. Again, I had nothing to do with that. 

As to the videotaping, FEW seminar givers allow for the video taping of the seminar unless they are in control of the media. In fact many national seminars I've taught at do not allow videotaping of any kind, even by the instructor. I certainly would never allow you to be in control of a tape of my work. I have little doubt that you'd edit it to try and make me look bad, no matter how good were the results I gave you with your dog. You're completely irrational and unreasonable here, I doubt that you'd be any different in this. 

You sent me an email basically imposing the terms of your attendance as if you had some say in the matter. You said that you'd show up with your dog that (apparently) had an issue with the call off, that you'd bring your decoy and that you'd allow me to show you how to get the call off. You also said that you'd bring your video camera and that you'd tape the work. 

You were told that bringing a biting dog to this seminar was inappropriate, that the seminar giver would not allow you to attend, and that you would not be doing any videotaping, even if you had been permitted to attend. You replied to the effect that you could not be stopped from videotaping the seminar! 

Since my plane didn't leave until around noon on my last day in the area I proposed that we meet early that morning and that I'd show you the protocol, giving you a call off. Since this would not be part of the seminar we'd be working at a location of your choosing, near Denver. Since there are insurance issues involved and I was donating my time I said that you've be required to supply insurance, the location, and written permission from the owner of the property that you'd arrange for us to use. Those things are routine for a professional dog training situation. But you declined, as I said. 



Thomas Barriano said:


> The rest of your post isn't worth my time and energy to reply.


Of course not Thomas. We know that you're the real zero in this exchange. You've worked with a few dogs but have never really accomplished anything significant yourself. You've never done a seminar where you are the head instructor, one−instructor−of−many on the program, or even an assistant instructor. You're just a dog handler. Nothing wrong with that except when you try to pretend that you're something more or you try to discredit me. Then, I'm happy to show the true picture. Thomas you're *NOT EVEN * an Internet Blowhard. ROFL. 



Thomas Barriano said:


> My opinion that you are a blowhard internet trainer who thinks he is an expert because he rehashes and regurgitates other peoples work is an OPINION, not a personal attack.


Since it's about me and has nothing to do with this topic, it's obviously a personal attack. The fact that it's your opinion is amusing, but again, it has nothing to do with the topic under discussion, "False alerts in sniffer dogs." And your opinion is nothing but bullshit. Fact is that I handled a police service dog for over 5 years and then was the in−house trainer for my department for about the next 15 years. I've done 54 seminars and have three more scheduled for next year. NONE OF THAT has anything to do with the Internet. Those are real dogs, trained with real handlers and presentations made in front of hundreds of handlers, trainers and instructors. There are dozens of letters from people who have seen my work in person available to anyone who can CLICK THIS LINK 

For those can't be bothered to click, here are some comments from some people who have attended one of my seminars or who have had private lessons with me. Ingrid, a SAR K−9 handler wrote,


> I just want to say Thank you for all the help in ... the lesson last Monday. I really appreciate all your time, great advise and training you gave us. Your lesson on using the Ecollar taught me the correct way to use it and you gave me the confidence I needed to use it, plus I know you did all the initial training with Spanner. And that I am grateful for. I'm really glad that I came down to meet with you, I learned so much from that training ...


Laura, a SAR K−9 handler wrote,


> I have to agree that Lou Castle is an awesome trainer , he certainly knows his stuff and is always accommodating to us dumb humans.


Dave, a LE SAR K−9 handler wrote,


> I learned a ton during the class. If you aren't a believer in ecollars you should at least attend one of Lou's classes and see what he does first hand before making up your mind. The bite work we did at the end impressed me a lot. Not once did the handler ... have to raise their voice or give anything even close to a hard correction to the dog.


And just one more, Paula, who trains in PSA wrote, after attending one of my seminars where we worked her dog, wrote


> After months of struggling with the OUT command, I was amazed at how non-confrontational using the e collar ended up being.


Your statements that I've done in nothing in K−9's except on the Net is just one more of your lies. 



Thomas Barriano said:


> It's amusing NOT that now we're supposed to contact specific people at Culver City PD and not just personnel or the current commanders for your resume LMAO


The specific personnel that I'd have interested people contact are officers who I trained as handlers. They ARE _"personnel [and] current commanders."_ They'd be able to tell you that we didn't hire outside trainers to do our maintenance training until AFTER I was injured because they were there! People who were not directly involved with the unit would not know such details. I know how difficult it must be for you to be logical, but try to remember that I started in K−9's about 32 years ago. Most of the people who were around the department at the time are either gone, retired or were only minimally involved. 

Now it's clear that you're a liar, an empty suit AND someone who thinks that his own agenda is above the right of the forum members to be free of your special kind of crap. Everyone now knows AGAIN what you think of me. Can we get back to the topic now please?


----------



## Lou Castle (Apr 4, 2006)

Jon Harris said:


> David has it right. There is no question that every dog and handler team will make mistakes. We are not perfect , at least not yet regardless of how much we try.


I'm of the opinion that absent a medical condition, a properly selected, trained and handled dog will never miss. "Properly selected" means that the dog has the correct levels and balance of drives for the work. "Properly trained" means that the trainer has applied the proper techniques in the proper amount and that the dog has been proofed off masking and distracting odors. "Properly handled" means that the handler has put the dog's nose into the area where the scent is present and that he has not "blocked" the training with too much compulsion or conflict. He's observing the dog at all times and is careful to ensure that he's sniffing when he needs to. 

I've never seen a dog that fits my description miss. I have seen many misses. Often it's because the dog was not properly motivated, an issue of selection and training and sometimes handling. Most often it's due to handler error. The handler simply did not put the dog's nose where scent was present. A situation that's sometimes mentioned to me when I make this statement is "what about where a dog is exhaling when he walks past the crack of a door, the only place that the scent is present." The response is that's not a miss by the dog, that's a handler error. He should have seen that the dog was not sniffing at the door crack. 

The issue in court is not whether or not a dog misses, the issue is does the dog false alert or has the handler cued him. if a dog misses on the road that's mildly interesting but it's not a concern in court. The issue there are false alerts and handler cuing. If your dog misses, you're not giving the people of the community you police the service that they're paying for but that's not an issue in court. 

A dog that is weak on odor who frequently misses drugs may lead to a handler who intentionally or inadvertently cues the dog. It isn't just a coincidence that as dash cams become more and more common that this challenge to mishandling or intentional cuing became more and more common. I'm certainly not saying that anyone on this list does that, but we have quite a few videos and court cases that show us that something inappropriate is occurring. It has become far too common. Responsible trainers should be doing something that will stop this problem, rather than arguing for a system that allows it to continue, or one that is "just good enough." I realize that some may have a huge investment of time in a system, but if it's flawed, it's flawed. 

Think about a hungry wild canid who is hunting. He's not going to get the scent of his prey and think it's something else. He's not going to ignore it. Similarly he's not going to start digging frantically at a burrow when the scent isn't present. That's what this drive based system is founded on. 

A dog that's trained with a handler supplied reward system is indeed likely to get bored, tired, hungry, thirsty or frustrated and do something to get his handler to give him that reward and some whoop and holler. Jon you've admitted that you strive to avoid this, that shows us that you realize that it's an issue. Fact is that you are only guessing that your dog is not in one of the conditions that I mention. When you guess wrong, and since you're not perfect, it's only a matter of time, he'll false alert and when he does and you reward him, he owns you. Because in your system the handler is part of the system it's not necessary that you give him his toy and whoop and holler for this to happen. He'll false alert and see a change in your body language, that is rewarding even if you're trying not to show it. He knows that when he does this, he's done. You take him away and then his work is over, at least for a short period. Even if this never happens, you're spending time training this issue so that it doesn't happen; that you could be spending in searching. 



Jon Harris said:


> The national cert organizations realize and accept this. This is the reason for allowing a very small percentage of mistakes and not disqualifying the team. In fact even the Federal Govt. ( IE the US Army and the regs and guidelines that cover all working dog teams in the military have a measure of mistakes worked in the system. Again no one in perfect, well except maybe the dog god.


Yes, humans do make mistakes. That's one reason to take the human out of the picture as much as possible, as the drive system does. I'll agree that there is no 100% on finds. But there should be a 100% requirement on certifications. Dogs that false alert or miss on certifications should not be passed. We're talking about the rights of people to be free from unlawful searches per that darn ol' 4th amendment. Even one false alert is too many. False alerts are not allowable under the law for people doing vehicle searches in the US. They are a violation of their federal civil rights. 

BTW are you aware that US Customs, back when it was a separate entity, had a certification requirement that failed any dog that falsed or missed? I don't know if this is still the case since they've been absorbed by other agencies. If they could do it for many years, why can't they do it now? How is it that they were able to maintain this standard? 

It seems that because we're mostly discussing detection work here that you think that _ missing _ is somehow OK. Is it OK to miss a human? With narcotics you excuse it with the statement that _"no one is perfect."_ I'd bet that if it was your kid lost in the woods and a dog missed because he was not properly selected, trained or handled, you'd be, shall we say, a bit miffed! Console your wife with _"Well honey, you know that no one is perfect."_ and note her response for us. 

The national certifying organizations and the feds are simply admitting that there are flaws in the current training system. It's one thing for a handler to make an error and quite another for a dog who has been put into an area where scent is present, to miss, or for him to false alert, or for a handler who's gone down the wrong road to cue him. 



Jon Harris said:


> I worked highway interdiction almost exclusively and had stops and alerts where I was sure I had just missed it. Where interview showed that My dog was right but physical evidence was not present. I use the secret code that only certain dog handlers and drug interdiction agents use. I's known as Unproductive Response. ( but you need to secret decoder ring to figure it out) It is a secret code that means- well- the response was unproductive. Actually it is the best way to categorize any response that does not result in physical evidence being discovered.


Coincidentally it's the best way to cover up a false alerting or handler violating someone's rights too! 



Jon Harris said:


> Lou, what state and case are you talking about? Just interested as Id like to read about it where only one dog team trained a certain way was considered by the courts as reliable and exempt from search warrant requirements. And are you speaking about vehicle searches or something else.


The only place that I'm aware that a dog's alert constitutes probable cause for a search, is on a vehicle. (The only other condition would be at an international border as at the airport, but those folks don't need PC to search). Sorry but I'm not at liberty to discuss those details at this moment. There are things going on that are not appropriate for discussion in an open forum. If this gives you reason to disbelieve it, then so be it. 



Jon Harris said:


> Maybe I can learn something if I can open my mind a bit, but then again I am the handler of a substandard sickly dog that nobody wanted. Trained under the table by unscrupulous trainers that clearly lowered their standards for well for what I haven't figured out yet.


Perhaps it's because you owned the property that they used for training and you bartered the training in exchange for free rent? BTW did you declare that value on your income tax? Lol _"Substandard,"_ well you did tell us that he was given to you free of charge right? Normally dogs suitable for police work go for between $5,000 and $15,000 depending on the state of their training. It's probably because you are such a famous, big-time trainer that the vendor, who makes his living selling and training dogs, just donated him to you. He knew that due to your illustrious history as a dog trainer that word of this dog would spread far and wide and people who read about you would be beating a path to his door. Let's call this last bit MY sense of humor OK? 



Jon Harris said:


> And that substandard dog and handler were clearly passed through certification by 4 different organizations because they felt sorry for the handler with the sickly substandard dog that nobody wanted.


You're referring to certifications where misses and false alerts are accepted correct? lol



Jon Harris said:


> I guess I just cant figure out why anyone would have ever used that dog and handler for any searches. When the SO had their own dog but called this substandard team. When the state had a dog in the area but still called this team. When three other police departments chose to call and continued to call this team. When adjoining counties would call this team.


In the situation I described where in the courts exempted the handler of a drive system trained K−9 from the vehicle search warrant requirement, it's interesting to note that he was called when the local departments' own dogs were on duty, and at times present at the scene, because the officers knew that their own dog, trained with a handler supplied reward system was unreliable and both false alerted and missed.


----------



## Lou Castle (Apr 4, 2006)

Laney Rein said:


> Why is it now every thread that has anything to do with detection, Lou has to bring in his Donn Yarnall's shredding theory/reward. If he wants to discuss this method I suggest he quit interrupting every other thread with insinuations and start a thread of his own. This is getting a litt. And he still didn't answer David's point blank question.le old.


Laney you really are in love with the sweeping generalization aren't you? I've brought the drive system up in a colossal * TWO * discussions about detection. I do so because, unlike your post, it's pertinent to the discussion. Wondering, what could be MORE pertinent to the topic of _"False alerts in sniffer dogs"_ than a training system that eliminates the issue? 

To be clear, your reference to the system as _"Donn Yarnall's *shredding theory/reward"*_* is improper. "Shredding' is just a small part of the system and it has nothing to do with "reward." It's only been said about a bajillion times that this is NOT a reward based system. You still don't get it. ROFL. 

Yes, I did answer "David's point blank question." Refer to post #125. Please try to keep up.*


----------



## Lou Castle (Apr 4, 2006)

To clear up what some seem to think I'm saying about "sophisticated hidden compartments." The dog does not alert to a compartment because it's a void where one should not exist. The dog alerts to it because it has absorbed, and is now emitting, the odor of the illegal drugs. If the compartment never contained drugs the dog should not alert to it. The dog detects the odor of the illegal drugs, follows it to its source, the now−empty compartment. The dog has led the handler to evidence of the illegal drug smuggling. It's not sufficient, by itself to convict someone of trafficking or transportation but it is VERY strong evidence of it. 

Some folks here are locked into a highly flawed system and will defend it to the end. This end may soon come from the courts who decide that since it allows for false alerts and cuing, may put a stop to it.


----------



## Laney Rein (Feb 9, 2011)

Well there's another thread Lou has managed to ruin for the rest of us. Thanks Lou! So kind of you. *** mod edit ****

Lou start you own thread and contain your obnoxiousness to that thread and let the rest of us benefit from the info instead of your squabbling all the time. Whoever gives a crap about shredding can look it up now leave it alone.


----------



## CJ Neubert (Sep 7, 2009)

I have enjoyed this thread, when I see an individual whose posts I know are going to turn me off I just scroll past. Works great, although sometimes that person is so prolific a poster a few pages go by.


----------



## Jon Harris (Nov 23, 2011)

Lou,
I genuinely would like to know more about the case you talked about. The one where you talked about the courts exempting a certain dog team from requirements other teams in the jurisdiction had. This cant be a secret so why not cite the case so we can all look it up.

Please dont give the : not at liberty: answer ''

Thats very much like the " If I tell you I"d have to kill you"

If what you are talking about it what you seem to be saying then it has to be public record. Where is this case you are talking about.

You said it was a true story, Lets see where it is?
You do at times make a lot of assumptions.
I will clarify for you why the dog was donated
It is really pretty simple

The dog was delivered to a training facility in Texas with several other dogs to a particular training facility.The dog was priced to the facility at 4500.00 The training facility had contracted for a certain number of dogs. That number of dogs were supplied by the vender. The training facility , due to its own reasons chose not to take as many dogs as were contracted for.
The only avenue for refusing a dog that had been tested for drive and behavior and initially accepted was due to health reasons. By returning the dog to the vender for health reasons in the dog ( ie heart worms) the facility did not have the financial obligation for that particular dog.
The dog was returned to the vender and the vender. The vender now had a dog that was returned for health reasons IE heart worms, making that particular dog unsalable to about facility without disclosing the issue for the dog being return to the vendor. As you say the vendor is in the business to make money selling dogs not boarding them. The vendor was going to put the dog down if he couldn't very quickly get the now liability off his hands . The dog was offered to me and I took him. The dog was repeatedly tested and no heart worm evidence was found.

This vendor wishes to do continued business with the very close knit group of facilities here in Texas in and around San Antonio so he did not push the issue even though he suspected the dog was simply returned to him for other reasons and the heart worm issue was an out for the facility to not be financially responsible for this dog.

Actually pretty simple. You assume a lot of info that you did not have and as it turned out you were less than on the mark.


----------



## Thomas Barriano (Mar 27, 2006)

More spin and voodoo from Lou Castle. Laney is right, another thread ruined by you
FYI: You've never "kicked my ass" or anyone else on this topic or any other. Just because people with real dogs and/or real jobs don't have time or inclination to deal with your nonsense tactics doesn't mean you "won".
David Frost is a full time LEO who still trains handlers and K9's
You are retired on disability and your "experience" is ancient history. Giving unsolicited advice on the internet doesn't count as
"training". Comparing your experience or training to David Frost
or Jon Harris shows how delusional you really are.
Now I'll go delete some files so I'll have room for your next posts.


----------



## Laney Rein (Feb 9, 2011)

I always know the info from David is like from the Bible as far as detection dogs so am always all ears when he speaks.....so much knowledge and experience. I commend Jon in what he is doing....leaving a US LE job to work and train in the trenches overseas. So much experience. You're right CJ about reading around the commercials it's just annoying.....like reading a book with misspelled words.


----------



## Jon Harris (Nov 23, 2011)

darn Laney, Misspelled words? Thats me all over

Typing on a laptop in the dark with the building shaking from low flying helos ( we are right off the medivac landing pad) and a 80 pound dog playing lets step on the keyboard 
does cause a few mistakes and grammar errors much less breaks in thought pattern when posting


----------



## Laney Rein (Feb 9, 2011)

We'll give you a buy on this one, Jon! Hug to Jack.....in a manly way, of course. Extra flashlights would be handy, too, huh?


----------



## Jon Harris (Nov 23, 2011)

well we are a dark FOB
We can have lights inside at night but everything outside is dark or with red or blue lens flashlights

hes asleep now


----------



## David Frost (Mar 29, 2006)

Lou says: "Do you consider the presence of a sophisticated hidden compartment to be "physical evidence""

I did answer tht question. Absent physical evidence of drugs, ION scan etc, it's physical evidence of a sophisticated hidden compartment. The rest is speculation. With reason to believe certainly but speculation none-the-less. If you have to ask, (which you did) what else could be hidden in such a compartment, it's been a while since you've worked criminal interdiction hasn't it.


Lou says: "There's a significant difference between "work[ing] on the highway" and doing "highway interdiction." So you really haven't answered my question. "

You're right, in fact I was parroting your words. We no longer call it highway interdiction. As most units that work this type of details, we now call it "Criminal Interdiction". We are a state agency with jurisdiction anywhere within the State of TN. Not exactly sure what you are looking for, I'm certain it did answer the question. At any rate, we work any road where the public is permitted to travel. We do planes trains, automobiles and CMV's.


Lou says: "..... if you can't see the difference between "claiming everything is 'residual odor" and stating that a sophisticated hidden compartment that a dog has hit on is evidence of the transportation of narcotics,"

Oh I see the difference. One makes assumptions and uses it's own set of codes. I don't do either, our documentation system calls it like it is. 

David said: "I think anyone that says they can make sure a dog is never wrong, that every response is accounted for and explainable, in actual situations is a snake oil salesman"

Lou responded: "That's what I'd expect from someone who uses a system that allows for false alerts and cuing a dog."

So now you are accusing my handlers, based on a video from a different state, of allowing false response and cuing dogs because we document facts rather than some "doesn't it look like". 

I stick with my comment; I think anyone that says they can make sure a dog is never wrong, that every response is accounted for and explainable, in actual situations is a snake oil salesman"

I'm not selling anything and I won't work for the defense, even if it's under the guise of trying to help law enforcement.

DFrost


----------



## Howard Knauf (May 10, 2008)

Laney Rein said:


> mod edit
> 
> Do you know this to be true? Don't let your dislike for Lou jam you up in civil court. You'd really dislike him then. Just some friendly advice for those navigating through this litigeous world. Simple statements like that with no factual basis can ruin your new year.


----------



## Thomas Barriano (Mar 27, 2006)

Howard Knauf said:


> Do you know this to be true? Don't let your dislike for Lou jam you up in civil court. You'd really dislike him then. Just some friendly advice for those navigating through this litigeous world. Simple statements like that with no factual basis can ruin your new year.


Have to agree with you there Howard. Lou actually got a TRO against Steve Leigh (you can find it in the World Famous website)
Lou's in Cali and Steve Leigh is in Florida and has leukemia and weighs around 100 lb. I can see where Lou would be in fear of his life? LOL Check out the request. Actually looks like it was made out in crayon. Of course there never was a permanent restraining order issued.


----------



## Jon Harris (Nov 23, 2011)

Lou said; 
Perhaps it's because you owned the property that they used for training and you bartered the training in exchange for free rent? BTW did you declare that value on your income tax? Lol 

So once again you assume facts that you have no idea of.

let me ask you a question. Anytime you have anyone to your home as a guest, do you claim it since I assume you are trading their use of your home for a few hours for putting up with your rants.
Sounds like a case could be made for bartering for companionship. Not sure how you would claim that though

Also Lou on a serious note could you list a few certification organizations that are nationally recognised that are absolutely zero defect? Just like to know..


----------



## Howard Knauf (May 10, 2008)

Thomas Barriano said:


> Lou's in Cali and Steve Leigh is in Florida and has leukemia and weighs around 100 lb. I can see where Lou would be in fear of his life? LOL Check out the request. Actually looks like it was made out in crayon. Of course there never was a permanent restraining order issued.


 I'm familiar with that riff. Crayon or not...TRO or not, the result was the same. Steve has bigger things to worry about now. Kinda puts things in perspective don't you think?


----------



## Laney Rein (Feb 9, 2011)

Howard the info wasn't stating any one person did it. It was stating facts behind disability pay and what can affect it even if innocent intentions. Thanks for the warning, tho. Will take it to heart.


----------



## Christopher Jones (Feb 17, 2009)

Getting back to the original topic if thats okay, this article gives the police's own stats showing 80% of all indications showing no drugs. For me PC needs to have a higher % than 20% correct. For me PC should be over 50%. So if the dogs are not good enough to give PC within a majority of cases then there should already be PC before the dog are brought in.


----------



## Jon Harris (Nov 23, 2011)

If I remember correctly this article is not referencing dog sniffs in the US. The lowest threshold that I know of where the courts have made a determination in the US was 54% and that comes from
*United States v Cedano-Arellano*
(332 F. 3d 568 (2003) Ninth Circuit:

personally that is way too low for me to feel comfortable with if my dog was in that range.


----------



## Christopher Jones (Feb 17, 2009)

Jon Harris said:


> If I remember correctly this article is not referencing dog sniffs in the US. The lowest threshold that I know of where the courts have made a determination in the US was 54% and that comes from
> *United States v Cedano-Arellano*
> (332 F. 3d 568 (2003) Ninth Circuit:
> 
> personally that is way too low for me to feel comfortable with if my dog was in that range.


Yeah, the higher the better but I would be happy with over 50%. Obviously there are issues with residule odour which would throw the stats out, and they need to be factored in.
Here in Australia we dont have "proberble cause" we have "reasonable suspision" which from what I understand has a lower level of proof, for want of a better word.


----------



## brad robert (Nov 26, 2008)

Christopher Jones said:


> Yeah, the higher the better but I would be happy with over 50%. Obviously there are issues with residule odour which would throw the stats out, and they need to be factored in.
> Here in Australia we dont have "proberble cause" we have "reasonable suspision" which from what I understand has a lower level of proof, for want of a better word.


Thats true Chris over here we dont have it in our "constitution" Your pretty much screwed.


----------



## Christopher Jones (Feb 17, 2009)

brad robert said:


> Thats true Chris over here we dont have it in our "constitution" Your pretty much screwed.


We also have the Magnacarta and Bill of Rights act UK (1688) which we gain protection from.


----------



## David Frost (Mar 29, 2006)

Christopher Jones said:


> Getting back to the original topic if thats okay, this article gives the police's own stats showing 80% of all indications showing no drugs. For me PC needs to have a higher % than 20% correct. For me PC should be over 50%. So if the dogs are not good enough to give PC within a majority of cases then there should already be PC before the dog are brought in.



I would agree. While we strive for protection, I know from experience that isn't possible. However, that should not preclude training and working within the limits set by law. Probable cause, as you have stated, must be better than chance (50/50). It is a higher standard than reasonable suspicion, but less than proof needed to convict. It is why I maintain each dog be measured by its' merit. 

DFrost


----------



## Howard Knauf (May 10, 2008)

David Frost said:


> I would agree. While we strive for protection, I know from experience that isn't possible. However, that should not preclude training and working within the limits set by law. Probable cause, as you have stated, must be better than chance (50/50). It is a higher standard than reasonable suspicion, but less than proof needed to convict. It is why I maintain each dog be measured by its' merit.
> 
> DFrost


 Exactly. PC isn't the high percentage factor that most people think it is. 51% or better. The higher the better of course.

Training records for my drug dog for blind searches was 95% accurate. For my bomb dog it was near 97% accurate. Not too bad for dual purpose dogs. The handler has as much influence in the stats as the dog IMO. If the handler doesn't do his job the dog won't reach odor, or the body language cues are missed.


----------



## Lou Castle (Apr 4, 2006)

Laney Rein said:


> Well there's another thread Lou has managed to ruin for the rest of us. Thanks Lou! So kind of you.


Different people have different ideas about what _"ruins threads."_ I happen to think that it's repeated off−topic rants by people with little experience, knowledge, or training who do little besides make personal attacks on others.


----------



## Lou Castle (Apr 4, 2006)

Jon Harris said:


> Lou,
> I genuinely would like to know more about the case you talked about. The one where you talked about the courts exempting a certain dog team from requirements other teams in the jurisdiction had. This cant be a secret so why not cite the case so we can all look it up.
> 
> Please dont give the : not at liberty: answer ''
> ...


Not even close Jon. One is serious and the other is a joke. It's a shame that you don't understand the difference. I'd suggest a close read of a couple of David's posts where he makes a similar statement about not making certain comments on an open forum. This is the same. Perhaps later I will be at liberty to divulge the information. As a former LEO you should be aware that it's not good to embarrass others in the profession. The meeting I spoke of was private and no names were mentioned. I see no reason to embarrass the others who are not even here to defend themselves. 



Jon Harris said:


> You do at times make a lot of assumptions.
> I will clarify for you why the dog was donated
> It is really pretty simple
> 
> ...


It is very simple Jon. If the dog never had heartworms as you allege, all the vendor would have to do is provide the new purchaser with a vet report showing it. He's done his due diligence and he could easily sell the dog to another agency for the same price. Instead, you've told us that he gave the dog to you at no cost, placing your entire story into the "myth category." End of story ... Your claim is nonsense.


----------



## Lou Castle (Apr 4, 2006)

Thomas Barriano said:


> More spin and voodoo from Lou Castle. Laney is right, another thread ruined by you


ANOTHER off−toic rant from someone with little expeirnce, knowledge, or training who does little besides make personal attacks on others. Are you and Laney twins? ROFL



Thomas Barriano said:


> FYI: You've never "kicked my ass"


Thomas I've kicked your ass anytime we've disagreed on substantive topics in any discussion that's taken place on this forum or anyplace else we've disagreed. You have little training experience or knowledge on this topic or other topics where I've contributed. THAT is the reason that you constantly go to the personal attack. You run out of knowledge, reason and logic after a few exchanges and have nothing else left. 



Thomas Barriano said:


> Just because people with real dogs and/or real jobs don't have time or inclination to deal with your nonsense tactics doesn't mean you "won".


The dog's I've handled, trained and that have been brought to my seminars are "real" Thomas. No matter how many times you try to spread your bullshit. 



Thomas Barriano said:


> David Frost is a full time LEO who still trains handlers and K9's
> You are retired on disability and your "experience" is ancient history.


_"Ancient history?"_ My last seminar was December 15. There were six done last year. BTW they all involved _"real K−9's"_ lol. 



Thomas Barriano said:


> Giving unsolicited advice on the internet doesn't count as
> "training".


I know. Doing seminars, problem solving with local police K−9's and training private clients does. 



Thomas Barriano said:


> Comparing your experience or training to David Frost
> or Jon Harris shows how delusional you really are.


I doubt that I have as much experience as David. I know that I have more than Jon. And as for you ............. ROFLMFAO. 

I guess my request to go back on−topic fell on deaf ears. Oh well it's but a short diversion from the topic .................


----------



## Lou Castle (Apr 4, 2006)

David Frost said:


> Lou says: "Do you consider the presence of a sophisticated hidden compartment to be "physical evidence""
> 
> I did answer tht question.


No you didn't David, now you're doing a tap dance around it by only quoting part of my question. Here it is again with emphasis placed on the pertinent part.


> Do you consider the presence of a sophisticated hidden compartment to be _"physical evidence"_ of the transportation of narcotics *after a trained dog alerted on the compartment? *Would you not impound a car that contained such a device and present it as evidence in court?





David Frost said:


> Absent physical evidence of drugs, ION scan etc, it's physical evidence of a sophisticated hidden compartment. The rest is speculation.


Let me make sure that I'm understanding your response correctly David. You're saying that the alert of one of your dogs is _"speculation?"_ Is that correct? 



David Frost said:


> With reason to believe certainly but speculation none-the-less. If you have to ask, (which you did) what else could be hidden in such a compartment, it's been a while since you've worked criminal interdiction hasn't it.


Odd David but in previous posts I've mentioned that sometimes such compartments are empty and sometimes they contain money. Would you like references to those posts? Joby said that he used to carry a gun and sometimes money in a compartment that came in a car he'd purchased. But I doubt that it's anywhere near what I've been calling a "sophisticated hidden compartment" or what I described in a previous post as _" things like holes cut into box frames of the vehicle and then the openings are welded shut. I'm talking about hydraulically controlled compartment covers where there are five layers of protection for the activation switch that must be done in sequence to open the compartment. I'm talking about welded shut dummy objects (false engine components) on the firewall of cars. I'm talking about compartments that have been sealed with silicone sealer containing drugs that have been placed into triple layers of heat sealed bags."_ 



David Frost said:


> Lou says: "There's a significant difference between "work[ing] on the highway" and doing "highway interdiction." So you really haven't answered my question. "
> 
> You're right, in fact I was parroting your words. We no longer call it highway interdiction. As most units that work this type of details, we now call it "Criminal Interdiction". We are a state agency with jurisdiction anywhere within the State of TN. Not exactly sure what you are looking for, I'm certain it did answer the question. At any rate, we work any road where the public is permitted to travel. We do planes trains, automobiles and CMV's.


All police work is _"criminal interdiction."_ The idea is to stop crimes before they are committed and, failing that, to arrest the people who have committed those crimes. 

The term _Highway interdiction _has a specific definition in law enforcement that covers the entire country, at least in my travels. It's a specialized form of enforcement where stops are made specifically to interdict LARGE amounts of narcotics carried by mules working for large distributors often at the Cartel level. People working "Highway Interdiction" don't bother with people at the user level as their primary target. There are dozens of indicators that are specific to this kind of work that are discussed at special training seminars that focus on this kind of work. This is beyond the sort of training that the average narco detector dog handler gets. The work is special, it requires specialized training and specialized tools. 

Usually people who are doing "Highway Interdiction" are working "higher up the food chain" than someone who is just "working on the highway." 

So perhaps to get the information that you seem intent on not supplying, and there's no issue of confidentially that I can think of here (please correct me if I'm wrong and I'll drop the inquiry) are your primary targets those who are transporting drugs at the highest levels, or do your handlers spend much of their time on users and low levels dealers? 



David Frost said:


> Lou says: "..... if you can't see the difference between "claiming everything is 'residual odor" and stating that a sophisticated hidden compartment that a dog has hit on is evidence of the transportation of narcotics,"
> 
> Oh I see the difference. One makes assumptions and uses it's own set of codes. I don't do either, our documentation system calls it like it is.


David I didn't ask how this would be recorded in your _"documentation system."_ Earlier called the alert of one of your dogs _"speculation"_ and now an _"assumption."_ In a handler supplied reward system you can never be certain that your dogs are not false alerting or being cued except long after it's happened and then only by an intense examination of documentation. With this drive based system it's obvious immediately, at the moment of the alert. And if it's happening, it's easy for the handler to fix. He doesn't have to return to the trainer for assistance. 

If there's integrity, good methodology, foresight and documentation in the training then. when the dog alerts, it's not just _"speculation"_ or _"an assumption"_ that the odor of drugs are present. OTOH if the method lacks these things then it's perfectly appropriate to question the presence of narcotic odor. 

David what percentage of your alerts are unproductive responses? And at what point do you start considering that a given dog is false alerting or being cued. You told us that you could determine this by your documentation, I'm just curious as to what levels trigger the query. 

If you think that having a dog alert and then finding a "sophisticated hidden compartment" as I've just described is an _"assumption"_ that narcotics was present at one time, well ............... Judges have used such information MANY times as they've ruled on seizures of millions of dollars of property taken from drug mules. And millions of dollars in cash have been seized based on such _"assumption."_ Probable cause is necessary for such seizures. The hidden compartment by itself is not PC. The alert of a properly trained dog PLUS the presence of such a compartment IS PC. 

Here's another question. I have seen many "trophy photos" that show K−9's sitting on large stacks of narcotics that they've found. Do your handlers have such "trophy photos?" Do they hang on the walls of your office or in the hallways ? 



David Frost said:


> David said: "I think anyone that says they can make sure a dog is never wrong, that every response is accounted for and explainable, in actual situations is a snake oil salesman"
> 
> Lou responded: "That's what I'd expect from someone who uses a system that allows for false alerts and cuing a dog."
> 
> So now you are accusing my handlers, based on a video from a different state, of allowing false response and cuing dogs because we document facts rather than some "doesn't it look like".


I've not _"accused"_ your handlers of anything. But it sure looks as if you called Donn Yarnall, the originator of this drive based system, a snake−oil salesman. Was that your intent? 



David Frost said:


> I stick with my comment; I think anyone that says they can make dog is never wrong, that every response is accounted for and explainable, in actual situations is a snake oil salesman"


I'll stick by my statement too. 



David Frost said:


> I'm not selling anything and I won't work for the defense, even if it's under the guise of trying to help law enforcement.
> 
> DFrost


Me too. Not sure why you bring this up. But it sure looks like an insinuation that I'm selling something or that I'd work for the defense. Are you saying that either is the case? Donn isn't selling anything either, his system is available free to anyone who can CLICK ON THIS LINK. 

The fact is that you're (and most handlers and trainers in the US) are using a system that has inherent in it, false alerts and that allows for the easy cuing of their dogs. It's so systemic that most of the major certifying agencies allow for BOTH false alerts and misses in their certifications. I happen to think that's wrong. You seem to disagree. 

Allowing for false alerts on a cert seems to me to be giving permission for "a little" violation of people's 4th amendment rights. It's like saying, "as long as it's not happening all the time and only to the "right people" (as determined by the officer at the stop) it's OK." I don't think it is and neither should any other police officer, or anyone else for that matter. I became a police officer not only to put crooks in jail but also to protect the rights of everyone, including the honest people and the crooks too. I don't think that's done by "only sometimes" violating their federal civil rights.


----------



## Lou Castle (Apr 4, 2006)

Thomas Barriano said:


> Have to agree with you there Howard. Lou actually got a TRO against Steve Leigh (you can find it in the World Famous website)
> Lou's in Cali and Steve Leigh is in Florida and has leukemia and weighs around 100 lb. I can see where Lou would be in fear of his life? LOL Check out the request.


Thomas not only are you liar as has been shown previously, but you also love to lie by telling only half a story. 

You're a liar AGAIN. I did not get a TRO against Mr. Leigh. I applied for one but because the local sheriff's office didn't serve him in a timely manner it was not granted. I decided against filing it again. 

The fact that I'm in California and Mr. Leigh is in Florida is completely irrelevant. He had sent me an email stating that he was going to visit a friend in California and that he (to the effect) was going to "pay me a visit." Mr. Leigh had previously been arrested for discharging a shotgun while intoxicated. I have children living with me. Had Mr. Leigh carried though with his threat to "pay me a visit" and one of my kids had opened the door, who knows what might have happened? A TRO was only the first step in protecting myself and my family from someone who has repeatedly shown that he's a psycho. 

Thomas how do you know that Mr. Leigh has Leukemia? Have you seen his lab reports? Or is this just ANOTHER case of you simply taking the word of a psycho internet stalker because he too, dislikes me. And what has that to do with anything? Ditto for his weight. How much does someone have to weigh before he can pull a trigger? 

Here's what one forum owner wrote about Mr. Leigh after he joined his forum and started his usual crap.


> ... of all the whacky whack jobs we've ever had on this forum ... Mr Leigh is far and away the whackiest. He's like * the biggest box of crazy anyone could unleash on the world. * Nuttier than a fruitcake (and then some). [Emphasis Added]


 This is the guy that Thomas cites here. 



Thomas Barriano said:


> Actually looks like it was made out in crayon.


Thomas you are so petty! But it's just what I'd expect from a zero. Any personal attack in a storm, right? BTW You just got it kicked again! ROFLMFAO Will you ever learn?


----------



## Lou Castle (Apr 4, 2006)

Jon Harris said:


> Lou said;
> Perhaps it's because you owned the property that they used for training and you bartered the training in exchange for free rent? BTW did you declare that value on your income tax? Lol
> 
> So once again you assume facts that you have no idea of.


I know what you said about the arrangement in the newspaper article, _"I own the paintball field which they use to train dogs, *so in return they trained us*,” said Harris."_ [Emphasis Added] That's a barter agreement to avoid the parties having to pay for services or rental. Per the IRS such a situation must be declared by both parties as income. I was just wondering if you had declared it. No assumptions or accusations, just a question? 



Jon Harris said:


> let me ask you a question. Anytime you have anyone to your home as a guest, do you claim it since I assume you are trading their use of your home for a few hours for putting up with your rants.


LOL. Entertaining friends in my home has nothing to do with the IRS, as does the barter situation you describe in the news story. 



Jon Harris said:


> Also Lou on a serious note could you list a few certification organizations that are nationally recognised that are absolutely zero defect? Just like to know..


Thanks for making my point Jon. The problem of false alerts and misses is so systemic that I don't think that there are ANY _"nationally recognized"_ certifying organizations that don't allow for false alerts and misses. 

The drive system for doing narcotics work is quite new. The certification for it fails any dog who either misses or falses. But I completely understand why you want to stay where you are! I mean who wouldn't want to take the easier test? Especially if he was working to a much lower standard! LMFAO. Sorry that was just MY sense of humor at work there.


----------



## Lou Castle (Apr 4, 2006)

To Jon and David, Laney and anyone else who thinks that it's OK that the national K−9 certifying agencies in the US allow for misses and false alerts in their certifications. 

Here is the requirement to pass the CARDA (California Rescue Dog Assn.) 40 acre evaluation. _"To pass the evaluation, *the team shall locate the subject *within the two hours allowed, and the dog shall perform the alert sequence."_ Missing or falsing is a fail. 

Here is the requirement to pass the CARDA (California Rescue Dog Assn.) Mission Ready Test. Between 1 and 3 subjects are hidden. _"If the team reports that the assignment is complete at any point during the evaluation but * has not located all the subjects, the evaluators will terminate the evaluation and inform the team of its failure."*_ Missing or falsing is a fail. 

Here is the requirement to pass the CARDA (California Rescue Dog Assn.) Recertification test for a Mission Ready Team. Between 1 and 3 subjects are hidden. _"If the team reports that the assignment is complete at any point during the evaluation * but has not located all the subjects, the evaluators will terminate the evaluation and inform the team of its failure."*_ Missing or falsing is a fail. 

Here is the requirement to pass the CARDA (California Rescue Dog Assn.) Recertification test for an Avalanche Mission Ready Team. One or two subjects are buried in the snow and an empty hole (an opportunity for a false alert) is also dug. _"To successfully complete the test, *the dog must find all victims within 20 minutes."*_ Missing or falsing is a fail. 

Here is the requirement to pass the CARDA (California Rescue Dog Assn.) Type 4 Disaster Dog Handler and Dog Certification. Two subjects are hidden in a rubble pile. *"The canine must alert on two subjects with no false alerts ... " * 

There are similar requirements for the Water Certification, and for general Cadaver work. In ALL cases, the dog Must not miss and he MUST not false alert. If he does either one, it's a fail. 

I won't bother to cite the regulations but in the state of Utah the SAR certification requirements are similar. *If the dog misses or false alerts, it's a fail. * 

The Massachusetts State Search & Rescue Dog Federation Basic Human Remains Detection Canine Evaluation also does fails any team where the dog either false alerts or misses. 
The ARDA (Ameerican Rescue Dog Assn.) certification for human remains detection fails any team where the dog either falses or misses. 

Notice any common theme running through these certifications? 

How come these unprofessional, unpaid, civilian (most of them) VOLUNTEERS (most of them) who train on their own time and attend seminars and training courses on their own time and at their own expense; can train to this standard but professional, full time paid law enforcement officers and the military can't?


----------



## David Frost (Mar 29, 2006)

Lou says: "Let me make sure that I'm understanding your response correctly David. You're saying that the alert of one of your dogs is "speculation?" Is that correct?"

Lou, if that's the way you read it, there isn't much I can say. I'm not going to be party to your little game any longer.

DFrost


----------



## Laney Rein (Feb 9, 2011)

Can we play tv show and vote someone off the detection island for constantly distracting threads?


----------



## Christopher Jones (Feb 17, 2009)

Lou Castle said:


> To Jon and David, Laney and anyone else who thinks that it's OK that the national K−9 certifying agencies in the US allow for misses and false alerts in their certifications.
> 
> Here is the requirement to pass the CARDA (California Rescue Dog Assn.) 40 acre evaluation. _"To pass the evaluation, *the team shall locate the subject *within the two hours allowed, and the dog shall perform the alert sequence."_ Missing or falsing is a fail.
> 
> ...


 All testing is a controlled environment. There is no residule odour placed anywhere nor anything unfair to the dog and handler set up I wouldnt have thought? I also would have thought with bomb detection there would not be an allowance for false hits and MISSES in their testing? Why would drugs be any different? I would expect in a controlled drug exam for certification no allowance for hits and misses. On the streets where the environment is uncontrolled I would expect its not gonna be 100%.
I have more an issue with when they are deployed and what happens to cops who cue their dogs and abuse their power.


----------



## David Frost (Mar 29, 2006)

Christopher Jones said:


> I have more an issue with when they are deployed and what happens to cops who cue their dogs and abuse their power.


I would be concerned as well. If that happens, I hope the officer(s) involved are caught and punished to the full extent of the law. 

DFrost


----------



## Jon Harris (Nov 23, 2011)

couple of things
lou i give you the story of how I got the dog. You cant know anything about what went on but you discard it entirely you decide it just aint so There is no reason to try to ever differ with you. You will decide all on your own

as to certs you mention and site sar situations.

The situation where the dogs are used is completely different. How?

narc searches are very different. Yes agree the dog or handler screwed up and missed a hide What happens? Nothing other then the bad guy gets away and hopefully he will get caught later.

lets go the other way, the dog false alerts for whatever reason. what happens? If nothing is found the driver or person subject to the stop goes on their way. OR if arrested and brought into the criminal justice system, the checks and balances of the courts take over and the search is thrown out or disallowed. That is the way it works are their cases where the wrong guy, or wrong that time pays/ sure but we trust our court system to weed these out

in all the situations above a mistake is correctable


Now in SAR
the dog misses someone and that person is either lost as in death, or they are missing longer increasing the death portion of their peril, You cant have the court and anyone else correct that. There is no way to correct a mistake.

Different situations

And since you state that the possibility of a miss or false is accepted in most all national certs that are of the criminal type searches and you do not agree that any miss is acceptable, then this forum is a very small place to present the point. Seems the entire world sees it one way and you regardless of who's system it is,certifications authorities in the US do not agree with your point

on your case you cant tell anyone about for whatever question, cite it. If it was in court cite it. If it was not a court case and you wont back it up I call BullShit.
simple as that. 

put up or well, you know the rest


----------



## Thomas Barriano (Mar 27, 2006)

Laney Rein said:


> Can we play tv show and vote someone off the detection island for constantly distracting threads?


NOT when the person has an immunity card from the moderators.
That lets him get away with crap then no one else does :-(


----------



## Connie Sutherland (Mar 27, 2006)

Thomas Barriano said:


> NOT when the person has an immunity card from the moderators.
> That lets him get away with crap then no one else does :-(


Hey, Thomas, if that's what you really think, you should talk to the board owner.

I know damned well that what you are saying is as far from the actual truth as it can possibly be. It irritates the heck out of me, after ALL OF US (mods) doing the interminable playground babysitting required on any thread where people who need to ignore each other just can't.

I would like to add that you have no idea what messages other members receive from admin or mods off the board about trying to stay at least more or less on topic.

But again, I would suggest a message to Admin rather than a post like this.


----------



## Howard Knauf (May 10, 2008)

Jon Harris said:


> narc searches are very different. Yes agree the dog or handler screwed up and missed a hide What happens? Nothing other then the bad guy gets away and hopefully he will get caught later.


 Not a big deal. We'll get em later. I know cause a team in Arkansas (I think it was) missed 50 lbs of Marijuana on a Greyhound bus. My dog nailed it from outside the cargo area.





> lets go the other way, the dog false alerts for whatever reason. what happens? If nothing is found the driver or person subject to the stop goes on their way. OR if arrested and brought into the criminal justice system, the checks and balances of the courts take over and the search is thrown out or disallowed. That is the way it works are their cases where the wrong guy, or wrong that time pays/ sure but we trust our court system to weed these out
> 
> in all the situations above a mistake is correctable


 This is a very big deal. I'm surprised you made this statement at all. If you're talking EDD's then no problem because it's a public safety issue. In this case you're talking about drug sniffs and the violation of the 4th amendment. You can't seriously believe this is okay?

The above mistake is corrected with a big payday to the person whose rights were violated. If you consider that okay and part of doing business as a drugs dog handler then I suggest you get your mind right....or get your quotes off this board for your own self preservation should you become an LEO drug dog handler again.


----------



## Thomas Barriano (Mar 27, 2006)

deleted post


----------



## Guest (Dec 1, 2008)

Connie Sutherland said:


> Hey, Thomas, if that's what you really think, you should talk to the board owner.
> 
> I know damned well that what you are saying is as far from the actual truth as it can possibly be. It irritates the heck out of me, after ALL OF US (mods) doing the interminable playground babysitting required on any thread where people who need to ignore each other just can't.
> 
> ...


Ignore button works great!  Happy New Year Connie!


----------



## Connie Sutherland (Mar 27, 2006)

Jody Butler said:


> Ignore button works great!



It does indeed!


Maybe we can resume the actual topic. :lol:


----------



## Laney Rein (Feb 9, 2011)

Jody - it's pretty bad when you set the ignore button and it's 5 pages later that you get back into the conversation.

Anyway, I really appreciate the mods here and appreciate having this forum to come to. I have met many new people who are wealths of information and have been very willing to offer advice (when asked) which I have taken seriously. Because of it, I train 3 times a wk when things are not in holiday mode - 1 with a professional detection trainer I drive 2 hours a week to train with. I did this because of a suggestion from a member here.

When you have 10 officers all citing cases with records to back it up, are currently training dogs or on the streets working them and having to deal with actual real life situations - those are the guys I want to hear from. Everyone has a right to an opinion but when it strays from the discussion at hand or takes personal affronts to guys who are actually doing the job - that is when, I think, a new thread should be started - since that is a whole other topic. I admit - I feel like there's a pebble in my shoe and I can't seem to get rid of it and have cussed it a couple times. It's only because a good conversation gets going and then all of a sudden someone jumps in and starts attacking everyone else's comments and distracting the thread to a totally different topic. Over and over and over again.

I want to hear more from David, Jon, Howard, I see Jim's back, and others like this to help in my training of my dog - even tho I am not LE and doing it for self gratification and because the dog enjoys it.


----------



## Guest (Dec 1, 2008)

Laney Rein said:


> Jody - it's pretty bad when you set the ignore button and it's 5 pages later that you get back into the conversation.
> 
> Anyway, I really appreciate the mods here and appreciate having this forum to come to. I have met many new people who are wealths of information and have been very willing to offer advice (when asked) which I have taken seriously. Because of it, I train 3 times a wk when things are not in holiday mode - 1 with a professional detection trainer I drive 2 hours a week to train with. I did this because of a suggestion from a member here.
> 
> ...


 
as long as it keeps (the people) you don't want to hear from out, then its all fine with me and has really worked for me


----------



## Laney Rein (Feb 9, 2011)

you may have something there! No response, no tantrums


----------



## Connie Sutherland (Mar 27, 2006)

_" It's only because a good conversation gets going and then all of a sudden .... a totally different topic. Over and over and over again."


_

Jody's solution really is the best one. 8)

Let's return to the topic.


----------



## Christopher Jones (Feb 17, 2009)

Another question i have is this, is there normally a minimum number of documented searches that is expected during a shift? I would assume they would have to vindicate their time. If so there would be a need for the guys pulling people over to pass work onto the k9 team. This could lead to people getting held up and searched just to make quotas?


----------



## Howard Knauf (May 10, 2008)

Nope. Your reaching.


----------



## Christopher Jones (Feb 17, 2009)

Howard Knauf said:


> Nope. Your reaching.


Ok, worth a try. lol


----------



## Laney Rein (Feb 9, 2011)

Howard, aren't most of the dogs used on force dual purpose dogs - so if they're not sniffing they may be used in an apprehension? Is there a percentage of the dogs that are specifically detector dogs? I'm sure there are times they are not used in a shift - altho the officer will still take calls without using the dog - right???


----------



## Brian Dascalu (Aug 7, 2011)

Brett Bowen said:


> Been following this thread and know that what I'm about to say is probably easier said that done and surely I am not the only one to think of this as I am not that smart (on the off chance I am that smart I copyright this idea). I also imagine it would take a really really really good dog. Putting the dogs safety on the side of a road aside.......why not have the dogs search independantly of the handler? It would be harder for the nicely's to sell that argument in court if the camera shows the handler 20 feet away from the dog as it's running around the car concentrating on finding dope.


The biggest differences that I have seen between dogs in the US and the UK (where I come from) is a) the whole on lead thing going on over here and b) the distinct lack of single purpose dogs. 

A comment on your point, just because a dog is working off lead doesn't necessarily preclude a false alert, this is more to do with training methodology, lack of understanding of the dog by the handler and a failure to carry out proper continuation training. Just my opinion.

And no, it doesn't take a clever dog to work off lead it takes good training of both handler and dog. ALL scent detection dogs in the UK work off lead.


----------



## Howard Knauf (May 10, 2008)

Laney Rein said:


> Howard, aren't most of the dogs used on force dual purpose dogs - so if they're not sniffing they may be used in an apprehension? Is there a percentage of the dogs that are specifically detector dogs? I'm sure there are times they are not used in a shift - altho the officer will still take calls without using the dog - right???


 You pretty much hit it on all points. The trend to single purpose dogs for street crimes, traffic/drug interdiction or tactical units is swinging the other way recently.

Any medium to large city will have their K9 teams very busy. Our city requires handlers to take calls for service but those call are hand picked to ensure the dog can be available at a moments notice. My friend took a domestic violence arrest the other day and while stuck in the booking room he couldn't respond to a robbery call with his dog wherein the perp was hemmed in a medium sized patch of woods. Another agency responded and a physical apprehension was made, to the chagrin of my friend.

Our units' infancy found handlers took no calls for service...ever. Manpower shortages changed that policy.


----------



## CJ Neubert (Sep 7, 2009)

Brian Dascalu said:


> The biggest differences that I have seen between dogs in the US and the UK (where I come from) is a) the whole on lead thing going on over here and b) the distinct lack of single purpose dogs.
> 
> A comment on your point, just because a dog is working off lead doesn't necessarily preclude a false alert, this is more to do with training methodology, lack of understanding of the dog by the handler and a failure to carry out proper continuation training. Just my opinion.
> 
> And no, it doesn't take a clever dog to work off lead it takes good training of both handler and dog. ALL scent detection dogs in the UK work off lead.



I prefer to work ON Lead when doing vehicle sniffs. For me these are usually on or very close to a busy highway/interstate. I like the safety factor. Tracking is the same reason. I don't want my dog hit by a car if there is a way to prevent it because 1. He's my buddy and partner, 2. I have put a ton of time, and effort into training, and 3. He's my buddy and partner. It has no bearing on if he works fine off lead or not.


----------



## Brian Dascalu (Aug 7, 2011)

Laney Rein said:


> Well there's another thread Lou has managed to ruin for the rest of us. Thanks Lou! So kind of you. *** mod edit ****
> 
> Lou start you own thread and contain your obnoxiousness to that thread and let the rest of us benefit from the info instead of your squabbling all the time. Whoever gives a crap about shredding can look it up now leave it alone.


Obviously something personal. The discussion, because thats all it is, is in itself educational. Lou has a lot of experience, maybe you would do better by learning from it.


----------



## Brian Dascalu (Aug 7, 2011)

Christopher Jones said:


> We also have the Magnacarta and Bill of Rights act UK (1688) which we gain protection from.


No-one has any rights anymore in the UK, thats why I am here instead of there. Oh, before I forget, the UK does not have a written constitution.


----------



## Brian Dascalu (Aug 7, 2011)

CJ Neubert said:


> I prefer to work ON Lead when doing vehicle sniffs. For me these are usually on or very close to a busy highway/interstate. I like the safety factor. Tracking is the same reason. I don't want my dog hit by a car if there is a way to prevent it because 1. He's my buddy and partner, 2. I have put a ton of time, and effort into training, and 3. He's my buddy and partner. It has no bearing on if he works fine off lead or not.


My fault, when I said all scent detection dogs in the UK work off the lead, I didn't mean that they _never_ work on the lead. Near traffic they would be on lead.


----------



## scott zimmerman (Dec 7, 2009)

Lou Castle said:


> Thanks for adding this info. To know if this officer did have such facts, we'd have to hear his side. But even with this the courts don't allow a detention of the motorist past a "reasonable period of time." They've never specified what this means but have said that much longer than about 45 minutes is "too long." The time limit is not _"long enough for the closest available dog to respond."_ Sorry but I can't cite the cases on this. If you do have the cases and I'm wrong, please correct me. I don't stay as up to date on this sorta case law as I much as I used to.
> 
> I couldn't agree more with the last part of your statement that I put in bold.


I am assuming you want federal cases (have several state ones). Most are out of the 8th Circuit, but there are also some out of the 6th and 10th. They don't actually say, "long enough for the closest available dog to arrive," but in their majority opinions, they do state the fact that the officer used diligance to obtain the closest available canine. US v. White (1994, 8th Cir.) was an hour and 20 minutes and US v. Maltais (2005, 8th Cir.) was almost 2 hours for the dog. The point I was terying to make is that it is the officer's level of articulate reasonable suspicion that allows for the detention, despite how long it takes. Obviously, if I worked a metropolitan area with numerous different agencies, waiting an hour and a half may seem excessive, but some areas are remote. It all boils down to does the officer that made the stop and the call to call for a dog gonna meet the court's burden of proof as to whether they had enough articulate reasonable suspicion based on the officer's training and experience to believe the vehicle contained contraband to justify the detainment. Again- that is usually hashed out in a motion to suppress hearing. 
As to the level of quality working the streets today, I agree their is always room for improvement. We, as PROFESSIONALS should always strive for 100%. If not, then either our heart isn't in it anymore, or we were never in it for the right reasons. That being said, I don't think that requiring a dog to be 100% (no misses/unproductive/false/etc.) is necessary or realistic. Please don't misunderstand me, I would not be satisfied with less and no one feels more strongly about Constitutional rights (especially the 4th Ammendment) than I. I take it very seriously. An alert (in the realm of narcotics detection at least) provides the government with what?- probable cause. Probable cause is just that, "information sufficient to warrant a prudent person's belief that the wanted individual had committed a crime (for an arrest warrant) or that evidence of a crime or contraband would be found in a search (for a search warrant)". The dog doesn't provide us with "absolute certainty" that a crime is being committed or that contraband was present. And what is a certification? It is a one or two or three day picture of how that dog did that day given those weights of odor in those particular environments. How many times have you seen an athlete train hard and nail it in practice, only to blow it come gameday? The opposite is also true, after all as the saying goes, "even a blind squirrel gets a nut sometimes." Accurate trainig records are a must, and if the handler is fudging them, it will show. More importantly, they are only doing a disservice to themselves as a dog team. My opinon is that if you show me a certification requires 100% and has a large number of teams achieving this, I will show you a certification that is too easy and not a realistic cert. and not deployment-minded. Sadly, I will be the first to say there are two kinds of LEO's with dogs- 1) the guys who are merely cops with dogs in the back of the car (ie. in it for the t-shirt types, and 2) those that look at dog handling as a profession, a skill they seek to master (dog handler first, cop second). I am proud to work with the latter.


----------



## Jon Harris (Nov 23, 2011)

howard
I dont think you think I was condoning a false sit and the arrest . No i do not condone it at all

What i was merly saying it that the mistake has a mechanism for correction where the SAR does not.


----------



## Howard Knauf (May 10, 2008)

Jon Harris said:


> howard
> I dont think you think I was condoning a false sit and the arrest . No i do not condone it at all
> 
> What i was merly saying it that the mistake has a mechanism for correction where the SAR does not.


 Sorry, it didn't read that way to me. Maybe I was being too critical. Wondering if anyone else read it the same way...specifically Chris Jones who is keenly interested in this topic.

Be that at it may.....it probably would have been better to say that a well trained dog with a very high percentage of finds in documented training of blind searches that indicates on the street, and nothing is found (unproductive search), has a mechanism for correction IF IT CAN BE PROVEN THE DOG WAS CUED OR FALSELY ALERTED. But then there's the rub again, isn't it? Proving that the dog is shite or the handler is corrupt.


----------



## Jon Harris (Nov 23, 2011)

Howard,
please do me a favor and reread the post. I may have got way off the mark i was trying to show 

it was not about the dogs at all good bad or fair or even the handlers

I was strictly trying to show the differences in sar and criminal search dogs. That in the criminal realm there is a system of checks and balances to at least try to address screw ups for what ever reason.

SAR does not and does not. 

This was a post about certifications

I aploigies if there was any confusion. Been pretty hectic here


----------



## Howard Knauf (May 10, 2008)

Jon Harris said:


> I was strictly trying to show the differences in sar and criminal search dogs. That in the criminal realm there is a system of checks and balances to at least try to address screw ups for what ever reason.


 I can see your point. It's a mine field to compare the two in the way certs are handed out in each venue. When Lou compares the two it seemed like common sense. Certs for SAR are sterile, as are certs for LEO drug dogs. By saying sterile I mean that certs for neither venue is done in real life situations which would be insane. So why not demand the same standard as SAR folks for law enforcement?

Yes there are avenues for people that are subjected to drug sniffs to get satisfaction. The only deal made for victims in a SAR situation is with Jesus. That's the hard truth but that shouldn't preclude us from being the best we can be...if not for anything but to gain the trust of the citizenry again. Perfect world I suppose.


----------



## Christopher Jones (Feb 17, 2009)

Just saw this the other day as well. Its under investigation by the FBI so the article says. 
http://gawker.com/5872685/genius-co...ting-evidence-by-own-dash-camera?popular=true
The site is obviously anti police but the video doesnt look good.


----------



## Laney Rein (Feb 9, 2011)

Brian Dascalu said:


> Obviously something personal. The discussion, because thats all it is, is in itself educational. Lou has a lot of experience, maybe you would do better by learning from it.


You're right Brian, it has become personal. So far all I'ce learned is that Loud likes to argue, he has it out for a couple members on the forum, you're one of his very few fans, he spouts his credentials all the time which don't pan out and he distracts good threads. Some of us are here to learn not watch people tear other very knowledgeable on the job currently working, training and patrolling officers down. So again, yes, personal and you couldn't force me to give him credibility at this point. Thanks tho for your opinion.

Ultimately I think it all gets down to what records are kept in training and on the job and how they can be related in a case of law should they need to be since there's been talk about use of K9s.


----------



## Connie Sutherland (Mar 27, 2006)

Connie Sutherland said:


> _" It's only because a good conversation gets going and then all of a sudden .... a totally different topic. Over and over and over again."
> 
> 
> _
> ...


----------



## Laney Rein (Feb 9, 2011)

Thanks Connie.

Won't quote the whole post but in Scott Zimmerman's post where he cites court cases he poses the question "why should we expect our dogs to never have a miss or be 100%". Made me think in no job or circumstance can we ever say a mistake was not made. We are human not machines, humans make mistakes. Well so do animals and I think to expect an animal to never make a mistake you might as well work with a robot. How many officers on here would feel comfortable running a robot or having one for a partner?


----------



## Brian Dascalu (Aug 7, 2011)

Laney Rein said:


> You're right Brian, it has become personal. So far all I'ce learned is that Loud likes to argue, he has it out for a couple members on the forum, you're one of his very few fans, he spouts his credentials all the time which don't pan out and he distracts good threads. Some of us are here to learn not watch people tear other very knowledgeable on the job currently working, training and patrolling officers down. So again, yes, personal and you couldn't force me to give him credibility at this point. Thanks tho for your opinion.
> 
> Ultimately I think it all gets down to what records are kept in training and on the job and how they can be related in a case of law should they need to be since there's been talk about use of K9s.


"..very few fans", way, way off the mark. I have been training dogs for over 30 years. I don't know it all, I never will and neither will anyone else. There is something to be learned everywhere if your mind is open. You can learn even from someone who knows nothing about dogs just from a comment they make that allows you to see things in a different way, its happened to me many times. If you are saying that Lou doesn't know what he is talking about, then I am afraid I can't agree with that statement. I may not agree with with everything that Lou, or indeed anyone, says but I have learned from reading his stuff. Lou is blunt, says what he thinks and doesn't tolerate fools. I like this because this is pretty much the way I see things. No-one has a monopoly on the truth (Karl Popper). The fun for me in dogs is learning something. If what you say about Lou is true (which I don't believe), then your personally motivated attacks on him are no better than what _you_ accuse _him_ of. I don't know you, but your posts regarding Lou just look bitter and twisted. If you don't like what Lou says, no-one is forcing you to read. However, other people do want to read it and should be able to with hijacks taking place. Take it PM if you have a problem with him.

When I joined this forum, first impressions were that the petty squabbling and backbiting were rare on the ground unlike a lot of dog forums. Maybe I was wrong. 

Just to add, before I get accused of anything, I don't know Lou and I have never met him.


----------



## Laney Rein (Feb 9, 2011)

I defer to Connie


----------



## Jon Harris (Nov 23, 2011)

since this thread seems to be traveling off the mark, id like to suggest we steer it back.

the topic is false alerts in sniffer dogs. it is not certs, systems,experience,or name calling.

so how about this

false alerts in sniffer dogs/corrections

what do you do to correct this? what actions are you taking. Lets stipulate that the false alerts happen so lets talk about fixing them. If a particular system absolutely has no false alerts ever, then that system is not really adding to this direction of discussion. 

over here i am handling a narcotics dog at the moment, was on a bomb dog and in addition i am training the other bomb handlers at my location so im certainly open to what you are doing in this situation as im sure you all are too. It is about getting better. and in my case staying alive, literally


----------



## Lou Castle (Apr 4, 2006)

David Frost said:


> Lou says: "Let me make sure that I'm understanding your response correctly David. You're saying that the alert of one of your dogs is "speculation?" Is that correct?"
> 
> Lou, if that's the way you read it, there isn't much I can say. I'm not going to be party to your little game any longer.
> 
> DFrost


No game David. My question was crystal clear but when you quoted it back to respond to it you left out a vital part of it. I asked, _"Do you consider the presence of a sophisticated hidden compartment to be "physical evidence" of the transportation of narcotics * after a trained dog alerted on the compartment? * Would you not impound a car that contained such a device and present it as evidence in court?"_ [Bold Emphasis Added] 

When you repeated it to respond somehow you left out the part of my question where I said that the dog had alerted on the compartment. Then you responded, _"Absent physical evidence of drugs, ION scan etc, it's physical evidence of a sophisticated hidden compartment. *The rest is speculation." * [Emphasis Added] _ 

The only _ "rest"_ that I see is the dog's alert. It looks as if you were calling that "speculation." That didn't make sense so I asked if that's what you meant. Now you characterize my asking for clarification as a _"game."_ You can do that if you like but it's off base. I'm just trying to find out what you meant by your statement.


----------



## Lou Castle (Apr 4, 2006)

Jon Harris said:


> couple of things
> lou i give you the story of how I got the dog. You cant know anything about what went on but you discard it entirely you decide it just aint so There is no reason to try to ever differ with you. You will decide all on your own


Jon you apparently supplied the information for the news story, you are quoted in it. Somehow it's not quite the same as what you tell us here. Since it makes no sense that someone who makes a living by selling dogs would give one away that he could sell for $4,500, I'll call BS. 



Jon Harris said:


> as to certs you mention and site sar situations.
> 
> The situation where the dogs are used is completely different. How?
> 
> narc searches are very different. Yes agree the dog or handler screwed up and missed a hide What happens? Nothing other then the bad guy gets away and hopefully he will get caught later.


I'm mostly talking about highway interdiction Jon, a situation where sometimes tons of marijuana or multi−kilos of "hard drugs" are involved. Often millions of dollars are involved in the deals. Allowing large amounts of drugs to go through mean lives are destroyed, overdoses will occur and the large dealers continue their sales. Looks like those things are not very important to you. I find that disconcerting, to say the least. 



Jon Harris said:


> lets go the other way, the dog false alerts for whatever reason. what happens? If nothing is found the driver or person subject to the stop goes on their way.


I guess that 4th amendment right to be free of unlawful searches and seizure doesn't mean much to you. It does to me and it should to every LE officer. There's little more onerous than having one of the most basic of your rights violated because someone is doing their job poorly and has allowed their dog to false alert, or worse, has cued him. 



Jon Harris said:


> OR if arrested and brought into the criminal justice system, the checks and balances of the courts take over and the search is thrown out or disallowed. That is the way it works are their cases where the wrong guy, or wrong that time pays/ sure but we trust our court system to weed these out
> 
> in all the situations above a mistake is correctable


There's no reason for someone who has had their right violated by an unlawful search to be _"brought into the criminal justice system."_ Even if the system later frees them, they've been jailed, spent thousands of dollars on lawyers and had their property seized (at least temporarily). Such folks often get huge paydays when they sue in federal court for violation of their federal civil rights. You can't make someone whole again, no matter how much money they get. You should be ashamed to have such a cavalier attitude about this! 



Jon Harris said:


> Now in SAR
> the dog misses someone and that person is either lost as in death, or they are missing longer increasing the death portion of their peril, You cant have the court and anyone else correct that. There is no way to correct a mistake.
> 
> Different situations


Let's talke about misses that occur in the bomb detection dog scenario OK? You can't _"correct [that] mistake"_ either. Yet most of the major certifying agencies in the country STILL allow for false alerts and for misses. Yes they are indeed different situations! In the SAR situation it's extremely rare for there to be more than one person missing at a time. In the bomb situation dozens can be killed and hundreds injured by just one bomb that gets missed. 

I cited the SAR certifications to show that certs that don't allow for false alerts and missing DO exist. You continue to argue for testing that allows for poor work and training that has inherent in it false alerts and misses. I'd think that honest, decent people would argue for the highest standards, instead of one that allows for failure of one kind or another. I think that speaks volumes about your training, your work, and your ethics, no matter how righteous you want people to believe you are. It's a sad state of affairs that a buncha unpaid civilian volunteers train to a higher degree of professionalism than law enforcement and the military. 



Jon Harris said:


> And since you state that the possibility of a miss or false is accepted in most all national certs that are of the criminal type searches and you do not agree that any miss is acceptable, then this forum is a very small place to present the point.


It's not just that I _"state that the possibility of a miss or a false is accepted in most all national certs"_ Jon, it's a fact. I think this forum is a microcosm of what will happen as the drive system gains ground. People who have spent their entire careers in a handler supplied reward system will fight it tooth and nail. They have a huge investment and change is always painful. The bad news is that the courts may make that decision for them. 



Jon Harris said:


> Seems the entire world sees it one way and you regardless of who's system it is,certifications authorities in the US do not agree with your point


Certainly I'm swimming against the tide but it's certainly NOT _"the entire world"_ who thinks as you do. You seem completely ignorant of what's going on with the courts in Florida and California where judges are on the verge of dumping the use of dogs as probable cause for searches in vehicles, due on a very large part to a system that allows for false alerts and for a handler to easily cue his dog. If that happens, those who are using such systems will be out of business. We can either police this ourselves or let the courts do it. Just about every time they've done so they swing the pendulum too far to the other side. 



Jon Harris said:


> on your case you cant tell anyone about for whatever question, cite it. If it was in court cite it. If it was not a court case and you wont back it up I call BullShit.
> simple as that.
> 
> put up or well, you know the rest


As I said when I presented the information, no one is required to believe it. Perhaps you should extend your stay in the sand box where folks don't have the protection of the US constitution. It's apparent that you don't place much value on it anyway. Some are trying to fix the problem and some have their head in the sand (or other places). Oops, there goes that sense of humor of mine again.


----------



## Lou Castle (Apr 4, 2006)

Jon wrote,


> lets go the other way, the dog false alerts for whatever reason. what happens? If nothing is found the driver or person subject to the stop goes on their way. OR if a2rrested and brought into the criminal justice system, the checks and balances of the courts take over and the search is thrown out or disallowed. That is the way it works are their cases where the wrong guy, or wrong that time pays/ sure but we trust our court system to weed these out
> 
> in all the situations above a mistake is correctable





Howard Knauf said:


> * This is a very big deal. *I'm surprised you made this statement at all. If you're talking EDD's then no problem because it's a public safety issue. In this case you're talking about drug sniffs and the violation of the 4th amendment. * You can't seriously believe this is okay? *
> 
> The above mistake is corrected with a big payday to the person whose rights were violated. * If you consider that okay and part of doing business as a drugs dog handler then I suggest you get your mind right....or get your quotes off this board for your own self preservation should you become an LEO drug dog handler again. * [Emphasis Added]


Somebody gets it. Good job Howard!


----------



## Lou Castle (Apr 4, 2006)

Laney Rein said:


> Howard, aren't most of the dogs used on force dual purpose dogs - so if they're not sniffing they may be used in an apprehension? Is there a percentage of the dogs that are specifically detector dogs? I'm sure there are times they are not used in a shift - altho the officer will still take calls without using the dog - right???


This really depends on the department, their philosophy and how they want the dogs worked. Most medium sized departments in this area have the K−9 handlers do all the things that the rest of the patrol officers do. Write citations, handle calls, make T−stops, etc. They try and keep the K−9's free from getting tied up in writing long, involved reports. 

Departments that have highway interdiction units usually don't have their officers writing tickets or handling reports. They keep them free to stop people suspected of transporting large quantities of drugs. 

Some departments, such as LAPD have the K−9's only for the purpose of searching for crooks on building break−ins, those who flee from felony pursuits and the like. They don't take reports, handle (routine) calls, do investigations, or write tickets. 

As to single purpose dogs, in this area, most departments use dual purpose dogs but some do not. The only narco K−9's that LAPD has work the airport. They're not on the road and are not available for car searches. They do not have any dual purpose dogs.


----------



## Lou Castle (Apr 4, 2006)

scott zimmerman said:


> I am assuming you want federal cases (have several state ones). Most are out of the 8th Circuit, but there are also some out of the 6th and 10th. They don't actually say, "long enough for the closest available dog to arrive," but in their majority opinions, they do state the fact that the officer used diligance to obtain the closest available canine. US v. White (1994, 8th Cir.) was an hour and 20 minutes and US v. Maltais (2005, 8th Cir.) was almost 2 hours for the dog.


Thanks for providing these cases Scott. I'm always impressed when people do this sort of grunt work. Looking at just the numbers, without examining the circumstances in each case is misleading and a waste of time. In US v. Maltais, we have an unusual set of circumstances that permitted the very lengthy detention "almost 2 hours" that is not present here. Maltais was found at 1:00 a.m. 500 years from the Canadian border in a _"very remote and isolated area"_ by a Border Patrol Agent while parked in his truck that was attached to a trailer that had been seen earlier that day driving around the area. _"The difficulty in obtaining a drug dog ... was particularly acute under these circumstances ... The length of time required to mobilize law enforcement support and bring it to the scene was attributable to the early morning hour and the remote location of Maltais and his vehicles. * While a detention of this length would be unreasonable under different circumstances, the unusual situation here made it impractical for the law enforcement agents to respond any sooner than they did."*_ [Bold Emphasis Added] We have no such unusual circumstances in Amy's case, that we've heard of. There we have a family driving home for Christmas. 

In US v. White we similarly have a remote location that prevented the arrival of a K−9 in a more timely manner. 

But the amount of time that they were detained is only a side issue here. What is more telling is that the handler had the dog circle the car _"at least 15 times."_ As Jan said _" he's either deliberately forcing the dog to alert or he's just stupid and poorly trained."_ I'd bet that the officer has records showing his training, education and experience that shows that he's not stupid or poorly trained. That leaves only one avenue .........



scott zimmerman said:


> That being said, I don't think that requiring a dog to be 100% (no misses/unproductive/false/etc.) is necessary or realistic.


No one in this discussion has made such a statement. But I think that having this standard on a certification is completely realistic. The SAR folks do it. So can LE but they choose not to. 



scott zimmerman said:


> And what is a certification? It is a one or two or three day picture of how that dog did that day given those weights of odor in those particular environments.


Great point. Most certifications are announced well in advance. Handlers have weeks, sometimes months to prepare for it. The dog should be at his best at the moment of the cert. Yet nationwide we have certs that allow for misses and false alerts. I think this is unreasonable and should not be allowed. I know that makes me unpopular but I’m more concerned with the reality of the work than getting people to like me. 



scott zimmerman said:


> How many times have you seen an athlete train hard and nail it in practice, only to blow it come gameday? The opposite is also true, after all as the saying goes, "even a blind squirrel gets a nut sometimes."


Seen both. But the fact that national certs allow for misses and falses means that people don't have to train for perfection as they should be doing. Instead they allow for some errors. The "athlete" you describe doesn’t train to make a mistake, he trains for perfection. 



scott zimmerman said:


> My opinon is that if you show me a certification requires 100% and has a large number of teams achieving this, I will show you a certification that is too easy and not a realistic cert. and not deployment-minded.


I'll have to disagree. If people are using the correct system, the dogs have been properly selected, trained and handled certifications are easy. It's real life searches that are hard. 



scott zimmerman said:


> Sadly, I will be the first to say there are two kinds of LEO's with dogs- 1) the guys who are merely cops with dogs in the back of the car (ie. in it for the t-shirt types, and 2) those that look at dog handling as a profession, a skill they seek to master (dog handler first, cop second). I am proud to work with the latter.


I think there's a third group. Those who think that they are obeying some "higher good." Those are the officers who are cuing their dogs to alert because "they know" that there are narcotics in "this car." This is a similar thought process to one that allows an officer to plant evidence when none is present because they know that "this person" needs to go to jail. It's very rare, but it happens. And until a thorough investigation is done in Amy's case, we won't know which kind officer stopped her unless she follows through. I hate even the thought that this sort of thing goes on, but the reality is that it does.


----------



## Lou Castle (Apr 4, 2006)

"Supreme Court: Does K-9's sniff violate Constitution?"

SHORT ARTICLE


----------



## Lou Castle (Apr 4, 2006)

Laney Rein said:


> You're right Brian, it has become personal. So far all I'ce learned is that Loud likes to argue, he has it out for a couple members on the forum, you're one of his very few fans, he spouts his credentials all the time which don't pan out and he distracts good threads. Some of us are here to learn not watch people tear other very knowledgeable on the job currently working, training and patrolling officers down. So again, yes, personal and you couldn't force me to give him credibility at this point. Thanks tho for your opinion.
> 
> Ultimately I think it all gets down to what records are kept in training and on the job and how they can be related in a case of law should they need to be since there's been talk about use of K9s.


Yaknow Laney for someone who keep whining about people diverting from the thread topics you spend MOST of your time here doing exactly that. I don't like to argue, but disagreements are natural in dog training. There are different ways to do things and different theories to get the work done. You're wrong that I have it in for a few forum members. The reality is that at least two forum members, you're one of them, have allowed disagreements to become personal. That's on them, not me. 

Laney at best you're being disingenuous with your statement regarding my "credentials." Anyone with a shred of common sense and the ability to read can see that the ONLY time I talk about them is when someone either questions them or lies about them. BTW I don't need your vote on my credibility.


----------



## Lou Castle (Apr 4, 2006)

Brian Dascalu said:


> "..very few fans", way, way off the mark ...
> If you are saying that Lou doesn't know what he is talking about, then I am afraid I can't agree with that statement. I may not agree with with everything that Lou, or indeed anyone, says but I have learned from reading his stuff. Lou is blunt, says what he thinks and doesn't tolerate fools. I like this because this is pretty much the way I see things. No-one has a monopoly on the truth (Karl Popper). The fun for me in dogs is learning something. If what you say about Lou is true (which I don't believe), then your personally motivated attacks on him are no better than what _you_ accuse _him_ of.


Thanks Brian. I appreciate your support. 



Brian Dascalu said:


> I don't know you, but your posts regarding Lou just look bitter and twisted. If you don't like what Lou says, no-one is forcing you to read. However, other people do want to read it and should be able to with hijacks taking place. Take it PM if you have a problem with him.


_"Bitter and twisted."_ Very accurate.


----------



## Lou Castle (Apr 4, 2006)

Jon Harris said:


> what do you do to correct this? what actions are you taking. Lets stipulate that the false alerts happen so lets talk about fixing them. If a particular system absolutely has no false alerts ever, then that system is not really adding to this direction of discussion.


I will not stipulate that false alerts happen with the drive based system. They DO happen, with some frequency with a handler supplied reward system. I'll disagree. The fact that such a system DOES exist makes such a discussion moot. Why would anyone stick with a system that allows falses to happen?


----------



## Jon Harris (Nov 23, 2011)

well i tried :sad:


----------



## scott zimmerman (Dec 7, 2009)

@ Lou-
I wasn't trying to say that either of these cases pertain to Amy's situation. My point is , with the proper ARS, courts have upheld detaining a subject longer for the purposes of using a detection dog to sniff the vehicle. Obviously, the circumstances for the delay (why it took so long to get one there) is important to the length of the detention (ie. "the dog handler took an hour to deploy his dog b/c he was watching the final quarter of the SEC Championship game" won't fly!). In most circumstances, it was due to the remote location of the stop. Even here in Georgia, we have stretches of Interstate that you won't see anything but Georgia pines. In my origninal post, I was just noting that it is entirely possible for a detention longer than 45 minutes to be upheld in court. I agree with your statement that, "The "athlete" you describe doesn’t train to make a mistake, he trains for perfection." I just feel that if you are in the "business" than you should always train like the athlete to be 100%. If not, again, your heart isn't in it and you need to move on. I am not naive to think though that there aren't handlers out there, be it laziness, arrogance, or whatever that just train "enough to get by" though and that is sad. Reality is, there are folks in every occupation in the country that are like that. Personally, I don't want my name attached to a case law that hinders every officer/handler in the country because I wasn't giving it 110%. Therefore, I train for the max. :smile:


----------



## Christopher Jones (Feb 17, 2009)

In the state where I live if a drug dog indicates on you the police will then try and search your persons for drugs. However, you have the right to demand that you be taken before a magistrate to get a warrant to search you and the police have to obey your request. If you dont claim this right the police can search you without your permission. How long this process of getting a warrent takes, ie a phonecall or other, I dont know.


----------



## Christopher Jones (Feb 17, 2009)

I thought this was interesting

"To what extent can the police rely on an agitated Labrador trained in drug detection to justify a search? The matter was considered by the supreme Court of NSW in 2004 in Darby's case. The Supreme Court cast doubt on the legitimacy of the use of police dogs to routinely justify searches. The court also pointed out that having an agitated Labrador jump all over you could constitute an assault and an illegal search. The court nevertheless did not state that drug dogs cannot assist a police officer in forming a reasonable belief that an offence has been committed."

So if the drug dog jumps on the person been searched it could constitute "assault"


----------



## David Frost (Mar 29, 2006)

The case you mention from NSW is not the U. S. It was mentioned elsewehere in this or someother discussion, In the U.S. it is not custumary to search people with a dog. While there are some exceptions, a prison for example, it's generally not an accepted practice. It is really difficult to discuss the use of dogs when you introduce the laws from different countries. 

DFrost


----------



## Jon Harris (Nov 23, 2011)

david, when you get dog with false issues what are some of the actions you take..

yes a very open scenario i know


----------



## David Frost (Mar 29, 2006)

Jon, it really just doesn't happen that often in training. If it does happen, I'm a believer that you ignore it and press on. I explained in another thread, the command (for us) is "find it". As long as the dog is doing that (searching) the handler is trained not to talk to the dog. If the dog were to respond where nothing is hidden (purely training scenarios) the command "find it" is repeated. and just move on. Having said that; you would want to know if there is something that caused that response. One time may not show that. I do encourage the occasional negative testing. Putting something in the training area that is associated with the drug/explosives, but is not an explosive or drug. Such as rubber gloves, plastic bags, fabric softener, other odorants frequently used or associated with drug trafficking etc and I also use uncirculated U.S. Currency. Of course you must be exceptionally careful to not contaminate the negative targets. The proper response for these items is, no response. If, a dog were to indicate on one of the articles, first I would determine if the article had been contaminated. If it showed that was not the case, then it's just a matter of doing some extinction training. I'm of the opinion as long as you are reinforcing the proper response, the rest will take care of itself. I've always said, any behavior that is reinforced is more likely to occur again. 

Again, documentation becomes is your friend. Being honest in your training records will let you know if there is a problem. If there is one, it might even indicate where the problem lies. Since we don't reward the dogs during actual searches, the dog would not have been rewarded if it turned out to be unproductive. Unproductive, as I had noted earlier, in our program is; absent physical evidence of drugs/explosives. 

DFrost


----------



## Jon Harris (Nov 23, 2011)

pretty much where i am

and trying to get the thread away from the BS


----------



## Howard Knauf (May 10, 2008)

Jon Harris said:


> .......and trying to get the thread away from the BS


 Well, you know that kind of statement wont stop it.


Regarding fixing the problem you inquired about. I've seen some handlers teach their dog a "show me" command after the alert. Should a false alert occur, the show me command would could very well tell on the dog. I don't like the show me command but I've seen it used effectively. Like anything else, a dog can learn a negative behavior to get the reward. A smart dog will learn to put its' nose on an empty place to get the reward with a show me command. Now you have two problems to fix.


----------



## Thomas Barriano (Mar 27, 2006)

Jon Harris said:


> well i tried :sad:


Hey Jon

At least you gave it a try.
I make a distinct between information and experience. When I want information I either go to the source or I do my own research. When I want to know about Randy Hare's system I get his DVD's or I go to his website. If the Shredding system interested me I'd go to Yarnalls website or contact him directly.
I don't want "Joes" interpretation of Randy Hare's system.
When I consider experience I look at the person that is doing the job NOW and then how long they've been doing it. When I consider any viewpoint I'm more interested in their reputation based on what other people say about them NOT what they say about themselves.
There will always be Kool Aid drinkers. Even some that convince themselves that it's champagne


----------



## David Frost (Mar 29, 2006)

"I've seen some handlers teach their dog a "show me" command after the alert."

The only reason I personally don't like using "show me" or similar commands is twofold. 

1. The dog should be trained to respond only when in odor. The dog is searching because he was commanded to do so, the response is conditioned. I jsut don't think anything else is needed.

2. Some handlers get in the habit of saying that during a real search. It sounds horrible on audio/video. May not mean a thing, but it sounds horrible. 

A pet peeve of mine is handlers that talk too much to the dog. The only thing I allow when training is; find it, check here (directional) and that's it. The find it is only used once, unless the dog stops searching, distracted etd. 

DFrost


----------



## Howard Knauf (May 10, 2008)

Any information you're going to get is 2nd, 3rd 4th hand etc. Dissemination on information from other than the original source is rampant and you cannot escape it. I doubt there's little information given on this board that is uniquely new but it does happen every now and then. 

I've read Don's website and Lou isn't saying anything different than Don. Were he to be doing so then I can see someone having a beef with that. That is not the case here. So your problem is not with the info, but with Lou. What's new? You regularly recieve info from people that didn't come from the source so that argument doesn't wash.

I read posts from people that I'm not a fan of. If it is sound information that makes sense and I can use it then I overlook who the poster is. It's called being a grownup.


----------



## Howard Knauf (May 10, 2008)

David Frost said:


> "I've seen some handlers teach their dog a "show me" command after the alert."
> 
> The only reason I personally don't like using "show me" or similar commands is twofold.
> 
> ...


100% agree. 

The handlers that teach the Show Me command have a problem with the dogs looking back at them after the alert, or they turn to the handler and face them on the sit. It's a band aid and a false sense of trust in their dog.


----------



## Thomas Barriano (Mar 27, 2006)

Howard Knauf said:


> Any information you're going to get is 2nd, 3rd 4th hand etc. Dissemination on information from other than the original source is rampant and you cannot escape it. I doubt there's little information given on this board that is uniquely new but it does happen every now and then.
> 
> I've read Don's website and Lou isn't saying anything different than Don. Were he to be doing so then I can see someone having a beef with that. That is not the case here. So your problem is not with the info, but with Lou. What's new? You regularly recieve info from people that didn't come from the source so that argument doesn't wash.
> 
> I read posts from people that I'm not a fan of. If it is sound information that makes sense and I can use it then I overlook who the poster is. It's called being a grownup.


Howard,

Information on this list maybe 3rd or 4th hand but the information on Randy Hares DVD's is not nor is the information on Michael Ellis DVD's.
I looked over the info on the Yarnall's site and got a lot more out of it then all the posts I've read here. There's a old saying
"what you are speaks so loudly I can't hear what you say"
My reply to Jon wasn't about anyone else.


----------



## Howard Knauf (May 10, 2008)

Thomas Barriano said:


> There's a old saying
> "what you are speaks so loudly I can't hear what you say"
> My reply to Jon wasn't about anyone else.


 If that's the case, then why make statements that solicit loud responses that you can't hear? Seems juvenile to me. I expect you'll answer but I won't reply. It's off topic enough.


----------



## Connie Sutherland (Mar 27, 2006)

Howard Knauf said:


> If that's the case, then why make statements that solicit loud responses that you can't hear? Seems juvenile to me. I expect you'll answer but I won't reply. It's off topic enough.



Let's have that be _the last post of a personal nature. From anyone. _We all have to stop dragging it up over and over and over and over .... we go a couple of pages and than bang! -- another thinly veiled reference to flaming.

_My post does NOT need a response. _
*
Thank you!*


----------



## Phil Dodson (Apr 4, 2006)

I'm guilty of using the "show me command". When a team responds to the aid and is not close enough for my liking, I have the handler say "show me". The dog immediatly begins searching and closes in on the aid. 

An old problem I have never gotten away from unfortunatly, but it has not shown any of the symptoms suggested by those commenting on it. 

Guess we'll have to agree to disagree.


----------



## David Frost (Mar 29, 2006)

Howard Knauf said:


> 100% agree.
> 
> The handlers that teach the Show Me command have a problem with the dogs looking back at them after the alert, or they turn to the handler and face them on the sit. It's a band aid and a false sense of trust in their dog.


I can't think of many things I dislike more than hearing a handler, on a/v saying; find it, find it, find it, find it, find it. Drives me insane. ha ha. Occasionally I will review a handlers video (it's all digital now) just to see if they are too vocal. 

DFrost


----------



## Howard Knauf (May 10, 2008)

Phil Dodson said:


> I'm guilty of using the "show me command". When a team responds to the aid and is not close enough for my liking, I have the handler say "show me". The dog immediatly begins searching and closes in on the aid.
> 
> An old problem I have never gotten away from unfortunatley, but it has not shown any of the symptoms suggested by those commenting on it.
> 
> Guess we'll have to agree to disagree.


 I have seen it work but it's usually to fix another problem. If your dog isnt getting as close as he can then the show me command allows the dog to be a little sloppy on the pinpoint. I did it for a short time but discovered it was an issue in my training. I backed up and taught the touch with the nose with markers and it fixed my problem.


----------



## David Frost (Mar 29, 2006)

Howard Knauf said:


> I backed up and taught the touch with the nose with markers and it fixed my problem.



Except on bomb dogs, ha ha ha ha. Where the saying; "close only counts in horseshoes and hand grenades takes on a new meaning, ha ha.


I'm just jokin' now.

DFrost


----------



## Lou Castle (Apr 4, 2006)

scott zimmerman said:


> @ Lou-
> Personally, I don't want my name attached to a case law that hinders every officer/handler in the country because I wasn't giving it 110%. Therefore, I train for the max.


Would that all K−9 handlers were like this. Heck, what kind of world would this be if everyone, no matter what their profession, felt like this?


----------



## Connie Sutherland (Mar 27, 2006)

Lou Castle said:


> .... what kind of world would this be if everyone, no matter what their profession, felt like this?


Unrecognizable? :lol:


----------



## David Frost (Mar 29, 2006)

Phil Dodson said:


> I'm guilty of using the "show me command". When a team responds to the aid and is not close enough for my liking, I have the handler say "show me". The dog immediatly begins searching and closes in on the aid.
> 
> An old problem I have never gotten away from unfortunatly, but it has not shown any of the symptoms suggested by those commenting on it.
> 
> Guess we'll have to agree to disagree.


WHAT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Two dog trainers that don't agree - - Why I never heard of such a thing. 

DFrost


----------



## scott zimmerman (Dec 7, 2009)

Connie Sutherland said:


> Unrecognizable? :lol:


;-)


----------



## Jan Wensink (Sep 17, 2010)

I have a mal. It rarely false alerts but when it does e.g. during a very long search without finds he looks at me in a frustrated way before alerting. When he smells a trained odour he spreads his ears in a special way before alerting. Almost all of our mals and GSD's do this before alerting. Some also walk with stiff front legs or wave their tails excitedly. I'm interested if you recognize signs like that before alerting or false alerting,what are those signs, what do you do with it. Would you document it as a false alert.


----------



## Howard Knauf (May 10, 2008)

Body language signs that appear when a dog is on odor are not there absent odor. Although the dog will give the trained response to fool the handler on a false alert, they dont give body language signs when trying to fool the handler because it's not a conscious act on the dogs part. If you don't know your dog well enough you can be easily fooled by an energetic dog that alerts when there is no odor.


----------



## Jan Wensink (Sep 17, 2010)

Howard Knauf said:


> Body language signs that appear when a dog is on odor are not there absent odor. Although the dog will give the trained response to fool the handler on a false alert, they dont give body language signs when trying to fool the handler because it's not a conscious act on the dogs part. If you don't know your dog well enough you can be easily fooled by an energetic dog that alerts when there is no odor.


That's true. My dog is very fast and energetic and there is very little time between between detecting the odor and the alert. My former dog was very calm and I knew him quite well. 
It took me some time to learn this dog's body language. But once you know your dog it's very hard for him to fool you. 
Howard , do you find it more difficult with spaniels and labradors to see if they are false alerting?


----------



## Lou Castle (Apr 4, 2006)

False Alerts:
Growing Evidence that Drug-Sniffing Dogs Reflect Police Bias

http://www.erowid.org/freedom/police/police_article1.shtml


----------



## Lou Castle (Apr 4, 2006)

Jan Wensink said:


> I have a mal. It rarely false alerts but when it does e.g. during a very long search without finds *he looks at me in a frustrated way before alerting. When he smells a trained odour he spreads his ears in a special way before alerting. Almost all of our mals and GSD's do this before alerting. Some also walk with stiff front legs or wave their tails excitedly. * I'm interested if you recognize signs like that before alerting or false alerting,what are those signs, what do you do with it. Would you document it as a false alert. [Emphasis Added]


This requires the handler to be very good and I think it's a mistake to rely on something like this for a handler to read his dog and call an alert. Not everyone, few in fact, are going to rise to the level of excellence in reading their dog for this to be reliable. Yes, just about every dog will show a body change. The higher the dog's level of drive is, the more overt will be those signs and unless you're legally blind you'll see them if you've any skill in this area. But if you have a dog that requires that you notice a difference in his ear carriage you've either got a low drive dog or he's not made the connection between the source odor and the alert. 



Howard Knauf said:


> Body language signs that appear when a dog is on odor are not there absent odor. Although the dog will give the trained response to fool the handler on a false alert, they dont give body language signs when trying to fool the handler because it's not a conscious act on the dogs part. If you don't know your dog well enough you can be easily fooled by an energetic dog that alerts when there is no odor.


I’m not a fan of a system that requires that a handler interpret these body changes in the dog. As the dog gets tired these signs will get more and more subtle, therefore harder to read. More than likely, as the dog gets tired so will the handler, making it even less likely that he'll be able to read the more subtle body changes in the dog. 



Jan Wensink said:


> That's true. My dog is very fast and energetic and there is very little time between between detecting the odor and the alert. My former dog was very calm and I knew him quite well. *It took me some time to learn this dog's body language. But once you know your dog it's very hard for him to fool you. * [Emphasis Added]


Many people pride themselves on being able to read their dog. It's a good skill to have but not everyone will be able to read their dog accurately, some even after years of trying to learn it. Even if the handler is very good it's still an interpretation and that's just an educated guess. I prefer to remove the handler from the guessing game with a system and an alert that is so obvious that anyone, even if they've never seen a dog work before can say that he's doing something very different than he was a minute ago.


----------



## Jan Wensink (Sep 17, 2010)

Lou Castle said:


> This requires the handler to be very good and I think it's a mistake to rely on something like this for a handler to read his dog and call an alert. Not everyone, few in fact, are going to rise to the level of excellence in reading their dog for this to be reliable. Yes, just about every dog will show a body change. The higher the dog's level of drive is, the more overt will be those signs and unless you're legally blind you'll see them if you've any skill in this area. But if you have a dog that requires that you notice a difference in his ear carriage you've either got a low drive dog or he's not made the connection between the source odor and the alert.
> 
> We don't have any low drive dogs and he perfectly understands the connection between the source odor and the alert. He makes very good alerts right at the source. But when I see the ears thing before an alert it's never false.
> 
> ...


----------



## Howard Knauf (May 10, 2008)

Jan Wensink said:


> Howard , do you find it more difficult with spaniels and labradors to see if they are false alerting?


 My experience with spaniels is limited. We currently have four in our kennels but I haven't spent a lot of time with them. I have more experience with labs though. 

As far as those breeds and false alerts......a properly selected dog, and good training should bring almost zero false alerts. In my training I don't assume that there will be false alerts so I don't go looking for them. I've been blessed with having no documented false alerts in training. What happens for real on the street is another story. My documented training on unknown finds have found that I, or my dog missed the training aid but never a false alert. I hated missing an aid but I would have been livid over a false alert.

I trained an explosives K9 team that included a black lab with the most drive I ever saw in a lab. The handler, although new, took to the tutoring well. It was a great team and the handler had no false alerts. When the dog went to a new handler later a problem arose. It was obviously a handler issue. Same can be said for another poor handler working a drug dog. Dog false alerted more than he found drugs and that aint no lie. It was pathetic but people with more power than myself called the shots. Sometimes it's best just to worry about your own ass.


----------



## rick smith (Dec 31, 2010)

re: Proofing
maybe a stupid Q, but regarding proofing to eliminate false alerts ....

the use of target odor related items is obvious, but when you are doing negative testing, do you also include items with residual target odor, and if so how "residual" to you make it when you prep that particular item hide ?

iow, i doubt a trained dog would have a problem finding a slightly loaded hash pipe in a room with lots of identical "used" (smoked but now empty) hash pipes ..... but if you worked the room again, could/would the same dog searching the same room then decide to alert on a residual pipe after the loaded pipe had been removed ?

or would this not be a proper training scenario ?


----------



## Joby Becker (Dec 13, 2009)

rick smith said:


> re: Proofing
> maybe a stupid Q, but regarding proofing to eliminate false alerts ....
> 
> the use of target odor related items is obvious, but when you are doing negative testing, do you also include items with residual target odor, and if so how "residual" to you make it when you prep that particular item hide ?
> ...


???????

I have little experience in this, but I never saw anyone try to extinguish a dog alerting on residual odor. odor is odor

A used hash pipe, is still a used hash pipe..
which the dog should hit on I presume...


----------



## Jon Harris (Nov 23, 2011)

Rick, 
seems to me this is more of a threshold question you have set up. Like was said odor is Odor. Some may be stronger but the dog would still be correct on the pipes slightly loaded or used but contaminated with residual. This would also be documented residual not conjecture trying to validate an alert.

Once again this is just me.


----------



## Thomas Barriano (Mar 27, 2006)

Lou Castle said:


> False Alerts:
> Growing Evidence that Drug-Sniffing Dogs Reflect Police Bias
> 
> http://www.erowid.org/freedom/police/police_article1.shtml


Already posted in a separate topic "The Slim Jim report". Only it got side tracked and wound up getting moved from the detection section to the lounge :-(


----------



## Lou Castle (Apr 4, 2006)

Jan wrote this response. My original comments are hidden 



Jan Wensink said:


> We don't have any low drive dogs and he perfectly understands the connection between the source odor and the alert. He makes very good alerts right at the source. But when I see the ears thing before an alert it's never false.


If he truly understood the connection between the source odor and the alert, he wouldn't be falsing, unless you're frustrating him. What happens if he's so tired that "the ears thing" doesn't show? What if you're so tired that you don't see it or you look away for an instant when he's showing it? 



Jan Wensink said:


> I don't need it. Perfect alert


A previous post you wrote contained this, _"*It rarely false alerts *but when it does e.g. during a very long search without finds he looks at me in a frustrated way before alerting."_ I'd say that a dog that false alerts, even only _"rarely"_ is not _"perfect"_ and neither is his alert. 



Jan Wensink said:


> No guessing games here but *when I can see *when my dog tries to fool me sometimes than it's not a problem. It's only a false alert when I think it's an alert.


It's not a problem if you are perfect and see it every single time it happens, without fail. Since you're human and, by definition imperfect, it's just a matter of time before you miss it. He's _"not trying to fool you."_ That implies such an intent to him. Rather he's telling you that he's bored, tired, hungry, thirsty, frustrated or something else, such that he no longer wants to work and would rather play.


----------



## Lou Castle (Apr 4, 2006)

Fox News, "Are drug sniffing dogs unconstitutional?" 

 Here's an interesting case from Florida.


----------



## Lou Castle (Apr 4, 2006)

Thomas Barriano said:


> Already posted in a separate topic "The Slim Jim report". Only it got side tracked and wound up getting moved from the detection section to the lounge


Yes I know. Since I think it applies to this discussion, I put it here.


----------



## Jan Wensink (Sep 17, 2010)

Lou Castle said:


> Jan wrote this response. My original comments are hidden
> 
> If he truly understood the connection between the source odor and the alert, he wouldn't be falsing, unless you're frustrating him. What happens if he's so tired that "the ears thing" doesn't show? What if you're so tired that you don't see it or you look away for an instant when he's showing it?


I don't think knowing the connection and the alert and falsing have anything to do with each other. 
The time when one is confronted with false alerts is usually when a dog is going from basic training Training every day/all day often with multiple finds and the first weeks of real work. Less and shorter searches and few finds. Many dogs need a little time to get used to this.
I have never seen this dog so tired that this body language doesn't show anymore.
We often search off lead or with a long 5 yards lead and keep our distance from the dog so we usually have a good view of it.


----------



## Jan Wensink (Sep 17, 2010)

Lou Castle said:


> Jan wrote this response. My original comments are hidden
> 
> A previous post you wrote contained this, _"*It rarely false alerts *but when it does e.g. during a very long search without finds he looks at me in a frustrated way before alerting."_ I'd say that a dog that false alerts, even only _"rarely"_ is not _"perfect"_ and neither is his alert.


The dog may not be perfect just very good but his alerts when in odor are perfect. He alerts close to the hide, doesn't look at me and never leaves.


----------



## Jan Wensink (Sep 17, 2010)

Lou Castle said:


> Jan wrote this response. My original comments are hidden
> 
> It's not a problem if you are perfect and see it every single time it happens, without fail. Since you're human and, by definition imperfect, it's just a matter of time before you miss it. He's _"not trying to fool you."_ That implies such an intent to him. Rather he's telling you that he's bored, tired, hungry, thirsty, frustrated or something else, such that he no longer wants to work and would rather play.


I'm not perfect but it rarely happens and I usually notice it. And he certainly wants to keep on working after a little plat / reward. It's what he lives for.
And no, I don't want a warehouse full of shredded towels after a training session.


----------



## Jan Wensink (Sep 17, 2010)

Howard Knauf said:


> My experience with spaniels is limited. We currently have four in our kennels but I haven't spent a lot of time with them. I have more experience with labs though.
> 
> As far as those breeds and false alerts......a properly selected dog, and good training should bring almost zero false alerts. In my training I don't assume that there will be false alerts so I don't go looking for them. I've been blessed with having no documented false alerts in training. What happens for real on the street is another story. My documented training on unknown finds have found that I, or my dog missed the training aid but never a false alert. I hated missing an aid but I would have been livid over a false alert.
> .


Thanks, we used to have a few spaniels in the past and I found it more difficult to read their body language. They were moving so fast, tails always swaying quickly and hanging ears.
We only use some labs on the airports for sniffs on people. In the ports we use mals and DS because they are more athlethic.


----------



## David Frost (Mar 29, 2006)

Personally, I believe a final response, is a final response. While all the other behaviors leading up to the final response are changes of behavior, they (changes of behavior) are not a final response. Just to be clear, to me, the final response is the single response that indicates the dog has found the odor it was trained to detect, ie, sit, down, scratch etc. The behaviors leading up to the final response, while MAYBE indicitive the dog is in one of the odors is trained to detect, is only that, indicitive. They are not the final response. Again, personally, and it's what I teach, unless the dog gives the trained final response, it is not indicated on the record as a response. Absent probable cause, voluntary consent, or other exceptions to a search warrant, a search of a vehicle would not be conducted. 

DFrost


----------



## Jan Wensink (Sep 17, 2010)

David Frost said:


> Personally, I believe a final response, is a final response. While all the other behaviors leading up to the final response are changes of behavior, they (changes of behavior) are not a final response. Just to be clear, to me, the final response is the single response that indicates the dog has found the odor it was trained to detect, ie, sit, down, scratch etc. The behaviors leading up to the final response, while MAYBE indicitive the dog is in one of the odors is trained to detect, is only that, indicitive. They are not the final response. Again, personally, and it's what I teach, unless the dog gives the trained final response, it is not indicated on the record as a response. Absent probable cause, voluntary consent, or other exceptions to a search warrant, a search of a vehicle would not be conducted. DFrost


I absolutely agree. The other behaviors are only used to see if a place deserves extra attention or not.
If the dogs takes more interest in a place it can be the scent of other animals or humans, food or a very difficult hide where he needs time to work towards the source. We often find drugs that are packed in a way that you will not always get the final response that was trained but you need to know your dog very well. A different work environment of course than most police officers work in.


----------



## David Frost (Mar 29, 2006)

"A different work environment of course than most police officers work in."


Ha ha, it's that pesky 4th Amendment, ha ha.

DFrost


----------



## Howard Knauf (May 10, 2008)

David Frost said:


> "A different work environment of course than most police officers work in."
> 
> 
> Ha ha, it's that pesky 4th Amendment, ha ha.
> ...


 That only we seem to be held accountable for.


----------



## Jon Harris (Nov 23, 2011)

I have to agree with David with one small caveat. I do count a response as a final it the environment wont let the dog physically preform the trained final response. My dogs are trained passive and are trained to sit as the final response. There are instances where the dog cant sit. Inside a vehicle where he is straddle a console or things like that. Sometimes I can see him try to sit and he is in such a position that it just cant happen. I think David would probably agree with me on this BUT I would never what to put words or anything attributed to him that wasn't his. David , Illl ask you to help me on this one. Do you ever see this situation?


----------



## David Frost (Mar 29, 2006)

"Sometimes I can see him try to sit and he is in such a position that it just cant happen."

Absolutely. I've seen them hit their head so hard under a vehicle/table etc, trying to sit, it hurt me to watch. 

DFrost


----------



## Jan Wensink (Sep 17, 2010)

David Frost said:


> "A different work environment of course than most police officers work in."
> Ha ha, it's that pesky 4th Amendment, ha ha.
> DFrost


That too, we can do sniffs on people at the borders.
But what I mean is that you can train in a way that is closer to your work. You can hide grams or an ounce in a car just like you will find when you are doing the real work. We regularly find hundreds of kilo's, mostly cocaine, packed in tape, latex with grease,coffee, shit, spices etc. in cargo's in containers that were put there four weeks before. We can't train for that. Such a big quantity seems easy but it is very difficult and the way the drugs are packed can make it very difficult. The dog smells something but can't locate a source and often a change of behaviour is all you get. Perfect alerts like you get them in training are rare.
In the past we often had containers with lots of MJ or hasj. On the outside of the container we had good alerts but when you made the mistake of sending the dog into the container rightaway no alert.


----------



## David Frost (Mar 29, 2006)

Jan Wensink said:


> On the outside of the container we had good alerts but when you made the mistake of sending the dog into the container rightaway no alert.



I would suspect that is a true example of the point-of-saturation. The dog can no longer discriminate a weaker odor from a stronger odor, therefore, it can not locate source. It is confusing to the dog. I've been on the border and watched. All it takes is a turn of the dog's head to send them to secondary. I envy you. ha ha. 

DFrost


----------



## Lou Castle (Apr 4, 2006)

Joby Becker said:


> I have little experience in this, but I never saw anyone try to extinguish a dog alerting on residual odor. odor is odor


There's at least one guy in Florida who is trying to do so. All he's doing is reducing the size of his hides and ignoring hits on the smallest of them in the hopes that they'll extinguish. I can't remember who it is but he wrote about it on an email list I'm on.


----------



## Lou Castle (Apr 4, 2006)

Jan Wensink said:


> The time when one is confronted with false alerts is usually when a dog is going from basic training Training every day/all day often with multiple finds and the first weeks of real work. Less and shorter searches and few finds. Many dogs need a little time to get used to this.


There are many reasons for false alerts. I don't think that one can point to a single thing on all dogs. Basically it's because the training has broken down on the street. Training should prepare a dog for the street. Often it doesn't. If someone is seeing false alerts when a dog hits the street it tells me that during this transition period they are still in need of training. More often it means misses rather than falses. 



Jan Wensink said:


> I have never seen this dog so tired that this body language doesn't show anymore.


If you're referring to what I said earlier then it's again apparent that you either don't understand or that you're reading into something that I said, either intentionally or unintentionally. I NEVER said that a dog would get so tired that _"body language doesn't show anymore. I DID say "As the dog gets tired *these signs will get more and more subtle, therefore harder to read. *More than likely, as the dog gets tired so will the handler, making it even less likely that he'll be able to read the more subtle body changes in the dog."_ [Bold Emphasis Added] If you're so in tune with our dog then you should be able to read the dog LOOOOONG before he gets tired. You should have stopped quite some time before this happens. 



Jan Wensink said:


> We often search off lead or with a long 5 yards lead and keep our distance from the dog so we usually have a good view of it.


If your dog is off lead or 15' away from you, he can go around a corner and then he's out of your view, making it impossible for you to see if his _"special ear spread"_ occurred or not. 

It's also been my expeience that people who make comments like this (talking about how they dog always shows this body language or that they've taken steps so that they always see it) simply have not done enough work for it to happen. They think that because they've been able to see it during training that they'll always see it in the field. They somehow forget that in the field there are many distractions that don't exist in training. It only takes something that draws your attention for a moment for you to miss the _"special ear spread."_ If you've missed it, you may never know it unless another dog makes the find while you're still present. 



Jan Wensink said:


> I'm not perfect but it rarely happens and I usually notice it. And he certainly wants to keep on working after a little plat / reward. It's what he lives for.


We know that you're _"not perfect."_ We know that _"it rarely happens"_ and that when it does you _"usually notice it."_ When everything bad happens together, that is "it happens and you don't notice it" you've got a false alert in the field. 

Thanks for making another of my points. Your dog _"lives for"_ the play / reward"[/i] and not for the search. 



Jan Wensink said:


> And no, I don't want a warehouse full of shredded towels after a training session.


ROFL. If you were using this drive based system you wouldn't have a _"warehouse full of shredded towels"_ after a training session. You'd have a handful or two and they just get put into the trash.


----------



## Lou Castle (Apr 4, 2006)

David Frost said:


> Personally, I believe a final response, is a final response. While all the other behaviors leading up to the final response are changes of behavior, they (changes of behavior) are not a final response. Just to be clear, to me, the final response is the single response that indicates the dog has found the odor it was trained to detect, ie, sit, down, scratch etc. The behaviors leading up to the final response, while MAYBE indicitive the dog is in one of the odors is trained to detect, is only that, indicitive. They are not the final response. Again, personally, and it's what I teach, unless the dog gives the trained final response, it is not indicated on the record as a response. Absent probable cause, voluntary consent, or other exceptions to a search warrant, a search of a vehicle would not be conducted.
> 
> DFrost


Absolutely agree. I've been harping on this for years. Yet, many times I've seen handlers call nothing more than a head turn towards a car "an alert" and use it to justify a search. This is one of the problems plaguing LE right now. Dozens of reasons a dog might do this and it may have nothing to do with the presence of target odor.


----------



## Lou Castle (Apr 4, 2006)

Jan Wensink said:


> I absolutely agree. The other behaviors are only used to see if a place deserves extra attention or not.
> If the dogs takes more interest in a place it can be the scent of other animals or humans, food or a very difficult hide where he needs time to work towards the source.


It depends on what you call _"extra attention."_ If you bring the dog back to it once, that's probably OK. If you do it repeatedly, you can easily cue a dog into a false alert, especially if he's seen you toss in his toy a few times. 



Jan Wensink said:


> We often find drugs that are packed in a way that you will not always get the final response that was trained but you need to know your dog very well. A different work environment of course than most police officers work in.


Scent is scent. If it's present in a quantity that a dog can detect he should alert. If it's not then he should not. Packaging, masking or distracting odors should not make any difference. More than likely we have more restrictions than you on what we can search and what we can't. 



Jan Wensink said:


> We regularly find hundreds of kilo's, mostly cocaine, packed in tape, latex with grease,coffee, shit, spices etc. in cargo's in containers that were put there four weeks before. We can't train for that. Such a big quantity seems easy but it is very difficult and the way the drugs are packed can make it very difficult. The dog smells something but can't locate a source and often a change of behaviour is all you get. Perfect alerts like you get them in training are rare.


Jan where do you work that you're _"regularly find[ing] hundreds of kilos?"_ And what do you mean by _"regularly?"_ 

If you were working in the US and interpreted a "change of behavior" as an alert, there's a good chance you'd lose the case if the opposing expert was worth a damn. A head turn is not an alert and there are many things, besides the source odor that a dog has been trained for, that might make it happen. 



Jan Wensink said:


> In the past we often had containers with lots of MJ or hasj. On the outside of the container we had good alerts but when you made the mistake of sending the dog into the container rightaway no alert.


Here that's called an issue of saturation. If you fill a balloon with scent and allow a little bit of it to escape the dog can detect the source. But inside the balloon, it all smells the same. It's where the scent has completely filled a compartment or a room and it all smells alike to the dog. He can't find the source by sniffing the general area and so he must be taught to detail, sniff specific areas, rather than the general area. In the case of the container where the dog can't find the source, the correct response is to either pull the contents or to allow the container to air out for a while so the saturation dissipates. 

There's a vast difference between working cars on the highway and working containers or a point of entry. Apples and oranges.


----------



## Joby Becker (Dec 13, 2009)

Lou Castle said:


> There's at least one guy in Florida who is trying to do so. All he's doing is reducing the size of his hides and ignoring hits on the smallest of them in the hopes that they'll extinguish. I can't remember who it is but he wrote about it on an email list I'm on.


what are your opinions on this, out of curiosity...?


----------



## Jan Wensink (Sep 17, 2010)

Lou Castle said:


> There are many reasons for false alerts. I don't think that one can point to a single thing on all dogs. Basically it's because the training has broken down on the street. Training should prepare a dog for the street. Often it doesn't. If someone is seeing false alerts when a dog hits the street it tells me that during this transition period they are still in need of training. More often it means misses rather than falses.
> QUOTE]
> In a perfect world there would be assistance during this training period. But everywhere training time is limited. We're aware of it and working in it.


----------



## Jan Wensink (Sep 17, 2010)

Lou Castle said:


> If you're referring to what I said earlier then it's again apparent that you either don't understand or that you're reading into something that I said, either intentionally or unintentionally. I NEVER said that a dog would get so tired that _"body language doesn't show anymore. I DID say "As the dog gets tired *these signs will get more and more subtle, therefore harder to read. *More than likely, as the dog gets tired so will the handler, making it even less likely that he'll be able to read the more subtle body changes in the dog."_ [Bold Emphasis Added] If you're so in tune with our dog then you should be able to read the dog LOOOOONG before he gets tired. You should have stopped quite some time before this happens. QUOTE]
> True, but toy want to increase the period that the dog is able to search, both physically and mentally and the way to do that are long searches. And sometimes you don't have a choice. We have to search ships, many crew cabins and other rooms,sometimes very hot. When you're alone you give the dog his resting periods but it still will be a lot of work.


----------



## Jan Wensink (Sep 17, 2010)

Lou Castle said:


> If your dog is off lead or 15' away from you, he can go around a corner and then he's out of your view, making it impossible for you to see if his _"special ear spread"_ occurred or not.
> It's also been my expeience that people who make comments like this (talking about how they dog always shows this body language or that they've taken steps so that they always see it) simply have not done enough work for it to happen. They think that because they've been able to see it during training that they'll always see it in the field. They somehow forget that in the field there are many distractions that don't exist in training. It only takes something that draws your attention for a moment for you to miss the _"special ear spread."_ If you've missed it, you may never know it unless another dog makes the find while you're still present.


There's nothing wrong with my dog's alert but as Itried to explain we use the body language as an extra indicator when a perfect alert can not be expected.


----------



## Jan Wensink (Sep 17, 2010)

Lou Castle said:


> If your dog is off lead or 15' away from you, he can go around a corner and then he's out of your view, making it impossible for you to see if his _"special ear spread"_ occurred or not.
> 
> We know that you're _"not perfect."_ We know that _"it rarely happens"_ and that when it does you _"usually notice it."_ When everything bad happens together, that is "it happens and you don't notice it" you've got a false alert in the field.
> Thanks for making another of my points. Your dog _"lives for"_ the play / reward"[/i] and not for the search. QUOTE]
> ...


----------



## Jan Wensink (Sep 17, 2010)

Lou Castle said:


> ROFL. If you were using this drive based system you wouldn't have a _"warehouse full of shredded towels"_ after a training session. You'd have a handful or two and they just get put into the trash.


Somehow I knew that this part of the post would answered. But I think we''ll ever feel the need to switch to this system although I think my dog will be great for this system.


----------



## Jan Wensink (Sep 17, 2010)

Lou Castle said:


> It depends on what you call _"extra attention."_ If you bring the dog back to it once, that's probably OK. If you do it repeatedly, you can easily cue a dog into a false alert, especially if he's seen you toss in his toy a few times.


 We bring a dog to it max. 1 time to search things he did't search properly the first time. Most of the time we don't need pc, only when we assist the police an alert can be used for it.


----------



## Jan Wensink (Sep 17, 2010)

Lou Castle said:


> Scent is scent. If it's present in a quantity that a dog can detect he should alert. If it's not then he should not. Packaging, masking or distracting odors should not make any difference. More than likely we have more restrictions than you on what we can search and what we can't.


There isn't a professor in the world that can tell you exactly what scent is. And I guess you know a lot about dogs and detection work but absolutely not about this kind of work When you think that packaging etc don't make a difference, talk to your CPB any Customs service in the world.


----------



## Jan Wensink (Sep 17, 2010)

Lou Castle said:


> Jan where do you work that you're _"regularly find[ing] hundreds of kilos?"_ And what do you mean by _"regularly?"_


Customs, Port of Rotterdam. Regularly is hard to describe. Several dozens of times shipment were found from dozens to hundreds of kilo's


----------



## Jan Wensink (Sep 17, 2010)

Lou Castle said:


> If you were working in the US and interpreted a "change of behavior" as an alert, there's a good chance you'd lose the case if the opposing expert was worth a damn. A head turn is not an alert and there are many things, besides the source odor that a dog has been trained for, that might make it happen.


We don't have to worry about that. Everything entering the EU can be inspected. The dog is a tool to do that like a torch, an inspection mirror or an X-ray scanner.


----------



## Jan Wensink (Sep 17, 2010)

Lou Castle said:


> Here that's called an issue of saturation. If you fill a balloon with scent and allow a little bit of it to escape the dog can detect the source. But inside the balloon, it all smells the same. It's where the scent has completely filled a compartment or a room and it all smells alike to the dog. He can't find the source by sniffing the general area and so he must be taught to detail, sniff specific areas, rather than the general area. In the case of the container where the dog can't find the source, the correct response is to either pull the contents or to allow the container to air out for a while so the saturation dissipates.


I know but if you don't you can make yourself and your dog ridiculous in a terrible way and you won't be able toexplain it to someone who's not a dog handler. But I hoped it was a useful piece of information for people who didn't know.


----------



## Jan Wensink (Sep 17, 2010)

Lou Castle said:


> There's a vast difference between working cars on the highway and working containers or a point of entry. Apples and oranges.


I know, both have their own problems but I think that it's easier to trainin a realistic way for working cars. We can't hide dozens or hundreds of kilo's of coke packed in 10 layers of packaging, leave them there for 4 weeks and use it for training.


----------



## David Frost (Mar 29, 2006)

Jan Wensink said:


> I know, both have their own problems but I think that it's easier to trainin a realistic way for working cars. We can't hide dozens or hundreds of kilo's of coke packed in 10 layers of packaging, leave them there for 4 weeks and use it for training.


It's difficult for us to hide multi-kilo finds and let them set for 15 to 18 hours (drive time to us from SW border) as well. Not impossible, but difficult. 

There is a big difference however in working the road and working customs, in this country. 

DFrost


----------



## David Frost (Mar 29, 2006)

Joby Becker said:


> what are your opinions on this, out of curiosity...?


I'm not the person you asked. I'll give my opinion anyway. I think it's ignorance of real world detector dog deployment situations. Training areas are playgrounds. We can do a lot of stuff in training that just does not translate to the street. Nobody ever loses - - - in training. 

DFrost


----------



## Lou Castle (Apr 4, 2006)

Joby Becker said:


> what are your opinions on this, out of curiosity...?


I don't think it can be done with any reliability.


----------



## Lou Castle (Apr 4, 2006)

Jan Wensink said:


> True, but toy want to increase the period that the dog is able to search, both physically and mentally and the way to do that are long searches. And sometimes you don't have a choice. We have to search ships, many crew cabins and other rooms,sometimes very hot. When you're alone you give the dog his resting periods but it still will be a lot of work.


I don't think that the best way to get a dog to search for longer periods is by doing _"long searches."_ I think that the best way to increase the time that a dog will search is to increase his general stamina. I do that with roadwork, either with a car or a bicycle. I know of few people who can do it by jogging with their dog, most people can't run long enough or fast enough. 



Jan Wensink said:


> There's nothing wrong with my dog's alert but as Itried to explain we use the body language as an extra indicator when a perfect alert can not be expected.


As I pointed out, since your dog is sometimes out of your sight, you may not see his _"special ear spread."_ The only time I think that a _"perfect alert cannot be expected."_ is when the dog is physically prevented from doing it, as in a sit alert under a car. 



Jan Wensink said:


> You train to have no false alerts in the field. And my dog lives for the search and for the play/prey.
> I think a dog must have balanced search drive and what we call possession drive.


In a handler supplied reward system the dog lives for play, that's his reward for doing the search. Play is relatively fragile drive that can be extinguished by many things. That's another weakness in such a system. 

Earlier I wrote, _"If you were using this drive based system you wouldn't have a "warehouse full of shredded towels" after a training session. You'd have a handful or two and they just get put into the trash."_



Jan Wensink said:


> Somehow I knew that this part of the post would answered. But I think we''ll ever feel the need to switch to this system although I think my dog will be great for this system.


Can't have you spreading nonsense rumors. I really don't care whether you switch. But there are people who are reading this who are willing, at least, to investigate the possibilities. At least one on this forum made the switch. 

It's interesting that you mock something that you know little about and based on this discussion, don't really understand. But it's not unusual. 

Earlier I wrote, _"Scent is scent. If it's present in a quantity that a dog can detect he should alert. If it's not then he should not. Packaging, masking or distracting odors should not make any difference ... "_ 



Jan Wensink said:


> There isn't a professor in the world that can tell you exactly what scent is.


I don't need a professor to tell me what scent is. That's what the dogs are for and they know exactly what it is. 



Jan Wensink said:


> And I guess you know a lot about dogs and detection work but absolutely not about this kind of work When you think that packaging etc don't make a difference, talk to your CPB any Customs service in the world.


Packaging makes a difference as to whether scent is present or not. But if it is, the dog should alert. You shouldn't have to "read" his "ear carriage" to tell if he's got scent or not. 



Jan Wensink said:


> Customs, Port of Rotterdam. Regularly is hard to describe. Several dozens of times shipment were found from dozens to hundreds of kilo's


Knowing where you work and what you do, I now understand quite a bit more about your statements. 

Finding large amounts of drugs, while exciting to the handler, is not much of an indication of how good a dog is. I'm more excited by a very small find or large amounts that are deeply concealed and well packaged. Just because there's a large amount of drugs does NOT mean that there's a large amount of odor. 

"Regularly" is not really that hard to characterize. For example, finding _"hundreds of kilos"_ every three days would be a bit different than finding the same amount every three years. 



Jan Wensink said:


> We don't have to worry about that. Everything entering the EU can be inspected. The dog is a tool to do that like a torch, an inspection mirror or an X-ray scanner.


It seems that because you have lower standards as to what you can inspect there, you've trained to those lower standards. We have the same lowered expectation of privacy when entering the US but that's not an excuse to train to a lower standard. Allow me to remind you of the news item that started this discussion. http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-12-12/accuracy-of-police-sniffer-dogs-called-into-question/3726228

This is the unintended consequence of not having to train to a standard that preserves an expectation of privacy. 



Jan Wensink said:


> I know, both have their own problems but I think that it's easier to trainin a realistic way for working cars. We can't hide dozens or hundreds of kilo's of coke packed in 10 layers of packaging, leave them there for 4 weeks and use it for training.


As someone said, _"scent is scent."_ I'll add that "searching is searching." The dog may need some exposure (very little if the right selection of the dog has been made) and the handler may need some specialized training but if the conditioning has been done properly and the system is the right one, the environment makes no difference. If you're waking downwind of a car with 10 pounds of MJ or a container with 10 pounds of MJ in it and odor is escaping, the dog should alert on it. One doesn't need to _"hide dozens or hundreds of kilo's of coke packed in 10 layers of packaging, leave them there for 4 weeks ..."_ The scent is either present or it's not. If it is, the dog should alert on it.


----------



## Lou Castle (Apr 4, 2006)

David Frost said:


> I'm not the person you asked. I'll give my opinion anyway.


[sarcasm] How dare you respond to a post that was not "addressed" to you. I DEMAND that you never EVEN THINK of doing this again! [/sarcasm]


----------



## Jan Wensink (Sep 17, 2010)

Lou Castle said:


> I don't think that the best way to get a dog to search for longer periods is by doing _"long searches."_ I think that the best way to increase the time that a dog will search is to increase his general stamina. I do that with roadwork, either with a car or a bicycle. I know of few people who can do it by jogging with their dog, most people can't run long enough or fast enough.
> _*People with more knowledge than we found out that the only other way to increase this kind of stamina is swimming *_
> As I pointed out, since your dog is sometimes out of your sight, you may not see his _"special ear spread."_
> _*Of course it not the only behavior. There are a lot of others such as walkin with stiff front legs, circling, going back to the same spot again and again, the tail etc.*_
> ...


----------



## Lou Castle (Apr 4, 2006)

My original comments are in black. Jan's responses to them are in bold. My NEW comments are in blue. 

I don't think that the best way to get a dog to search for longer periods is by doing "long searches." I think that the best way to increase the time that a dog will search is to increase his general stamina. I do that with roadwork, either with a car or a bicycle. I know of few people who can do it by jogging with their dog, most people can't run long enough or fast enough. 

* People with more knowledge than we found out that the only other way to increase this kind of stamina is swimming * 

 Swimming is probably the best way to do this. But just about everyone has access to a road, and a car or a bicycle. Not everyone has access to use swimming for this. As with running, if the person is swimming few can do it long enough for the dog to get much benefit. And so it requires either a boat or access to a water treadmill, or a pool. There's no pounding on the dog's joints, but I'd bet that relatively few can people do it.  

As I pointed out, since your dog is sometimes out of your sight, you may not see his "special ear spread." 

* Of course it not the only behavior. There are a lot of others such as walkin with stiff front legs, circling, going back to the same spot again and again, the tail etc. *

 Oddly enough the only one that you mentioned was the ear carriage. For those who may not recall, here are your words, _"It rarely false alerts but when it does e.g. during a very long search without finds *he looks at me in a frustrated way before alerting. When he smells a trained odour he spreads his ears in a special way before alerting."*_* Since you've told us that sometimes he does not give his full trained alert you have to interpret his behavior. That puts you into the equation, requiring that you "read" the dogs body language. Such a system requires a very good handler. While you're probably such a handler, a system that relies on this to make finds is inherently flawed. Not everyone will be that competent. You must always be able to tell the difference between his "frustrated look" and his ear carriage. Since he's not always in your sight NO MATTER WHAT BODY LANGUAGE YOU'RE READING you will miss some. Sometimes it's because the dog is out of your sight, some you won't see because you look away for an instant and some you won't see because he's tired and you simply will miss them. ** 

The only time I think that a "perfect alert cannot be expected." is when the dog is physically prevented from doing it, as in a sit alert under a car. 

 A lack of knowledge of a specific job.  

The "specific job" makes no difference, as much as you'd like to pretend that it does. But please, tell us of some situations where a "perfect alert cannot be expected" other than when the dog is physically prevented from doing it. This smacks of "my job is harder than yours." Lol.  

It's interesting that you mock something that you know little about and based on this discussion, don't really understand. But it's not unusual. 

 I don't spread nonsense and I don't mock anything. It's not important enough for me to do that. 

 Obviously you do both. Your earlier comment, "I don't want a warehouse full of shredded towels after a training session." Was clearly nonsense and it was just as clear that you were mocking the drive training system. Often people mock what they don't understand, and it's clear that you don't understand.  

We have another system than most countries, we think it's a strong system and don't feel the need to change it. 

Do you have the power to change it? Are you the head trainer there? I don't seem to remember anyone asking you to change your system. I certainly didn't. I'm just using it to point out some of the shortcomings of a handler supplied reward system, particularly one that relies on the handler to "read" the dog's behavior to call a find.  

 I have my doubts about certain aspects but the last thread about this system was closed.  

Feel free to raise those doubts. Do it here or start another thread.  

I don't need a professor to tell me what scent is. That's what the dogs are for and they know exactly what it is. 
Packaging makes a difference as to whether scent is present or not. But if it is, the dog should alert. You shouldn't have to "read" his "ear carriage" to tell if he's got scent or not. 

 Maybe you do need that professor. All these layers of packaging might change the scent pattern because not all scent molecules might penetrate the packaging.  

If the scent molecules of the trained odor is available, a properly selected, trained and handled dog should alert. If you're claiming that some other scent might draw an alert, I'll have to say that your dog is not properly trained or handled. You're looking for (insert the contraband substance here) ... If your dog alerts on cut, masking odors, distracting odors, or packaging odors, he's wrong. Perhaps that's acceptable where you work. Here it's not.  

 Another matter is that we train our dogs to react at the source of the scent. When you pack it or vacuum it there is no clear source anymore.  

When narcotics are "pack[ed] or "vacuum[ed], if scent is either on it or leaking out, that is the source.  

"Regularly" is not really that hard to characterize. For example, finding "hundreds of kilos" every three days would be a bit different than finding the same amount every three years. 

 Dozens of kilo's dozens of times, hundreds of kilo's several times a year.  

 See? That wasn't hard was it? lol  

 When I see the quality of our dogs and our training I don't think we have to be ashamed for that. I've seen many dogs from several countries and our dogs are at least as good as their best dogs.  

Everyone takes pride in what they do, even if it's crummy work. And I'm certainly not saying that yours is. It sounds a bit like you've lost your objectivity and are taking this personally. I've said nothing about the quality of your dogs or your training. Just pointing out issues with a handler supplied reward system.  

This is the unintended consequence of not having to train to a standard that preserves an expectation of privacy. 

 You just told me that the USA need another system of training because the results are so bad that the use of dogs for pc is questioned. I'm sure there are many excellent detector dog teams in the USA but when there are many with lack of training, knowledge and need video's for their training , whose standards are low than?  

The standard in the US for probable cause is quite high. It requires that a reasonable person, when shown the set of facts that the officer has, would believe that a crime is being committed. (There's much more but it's not necessary to go into it for the purpose of this discussion). The absence of such a requirement in your situation allows you to consistently violate the privacy of the people that you deal with. Again referring to the article that started this discussion, those dogs have a failure rate of 80%. Even given alerts on residual odor, systems that allow for calling such things as "stiff front legs, excited tail waving, or specially spread ears" also allows for a huge amount of improper privacy violations. As the NSW Upper House Greens MP David Shoebridge said "on average inappropriate searches are being undertaken 40 times a day in his state. No test which has an 80 per cent error rate could be considered a reasonable basis on which to conduct an intrusive public search of a citizen going about their daily business," he said. Now in your case it's not "people going about their daily business," nonetheless, it appears that you're working to the same standard, handler interpretation, as they are. *


----------



## Jan Wensink (Sep 17, 2010)

Lou Castle said:


> My original comments are in black. Jan's responses to them are in bold. My NEW comments are in blue.
> 
> I don't think that the best way to get a dog to search for longer periods is by doing "long searches." I think that the best way to increase the time that a dog will search is to increase his general stamina. I do that with roadwork, either with a car or a bicycle. I know of few people who can do it by jogging with their dog, most people can't run long enough or fast enough.
> 
> ...


Of course a dog will have to be physically fit. Detection work is top sport. But for long searches I refer to my previous answer.


----------



## Thomas Barriano (Mar 27, 2006)

*Re: Swimming*

"As with running, if the person is swimming few can do it long enough for the dog to get much benefit. And so it requires either a boat or access to a water treadmill, or a pool. There's no pounding on the dog's joints, but I'd bet that relatively few can people do it."

There are a couple of places locally that have rehab pools that are good for non impact exercise. I've never heard of anyone actually swimming with their dogs to exercise the dog?


----------



## Jan Wensink (Sep 17, 2010)

Lou Castle said:


> My original comments are in black. Jan's responses to them are in bold. My NEW comments are in blue.
> 
> As I pointed out, since your dog is sometimes out of your sight, you may not see his "special ear spread."
> 
> ...


I only mentioned the ears because I was curious if other handlers could see if their dogs were false alerting or not. In that case the most noticable thing for my dog are the ears.
In training situations I expect nothing less from my dog than a full alert. In difficult working situations I also look for certain behavior and I don'thave the kind of dog where the behavior will show only once.


----------



## Jan Wensink (Sep 17, 2010)

Lou Castle said:


> My original comments are in black. Jan's responses to them are in bold. My NEW comments are in blue.
> *The only time I think that a "perfect alert cannot be expected." is when the dog is physically prevented from doing it, as in a sit alert under a car. *
> 
> *A lack of knowledge of a specific job. *
> ...


I already told you about the drugs that were packed in 10+ layers of tape and latex. Drugs in beams of woo, drugs hidden in barrels with frozen fruit juice, in big machines and hydraulic equimment. I could give you a thousand examples. We deal with every kind of goods under every possible circumstance.
If you always expect a full alertthan, Im afraid you missed a lot of dope in your days.


----------



## Jan Wensink (Sep 17, 2010)

Lou Castle said:


> My original comments are in black. Jan's responses to them are in bold. My NEW comments are in blue.
> 
> *It's interesting that you mock something that you know little about and based on this discussion, don't really understand. But it's not unusual. *
> 
> ...


I made the remark about the shredded towels because you seem a little obsessed with this system and I knew I would get a reply. I don't have the power to change our system but I work and train on a daily basis with people who can. If I would find it worth the effort I could interest them.
I'm not an american LEO. Getting authorisation for the LEO part of the site would be a bit complicated,so my information is limited. A few points about the system are:
I think lots of dogs that are now very good detector dogs do not fit in this system.
I have my doubts about a system where the handler has less influence. The role in the handler in a dog team is vital. Our dogs work best when there's a constant interaction with the handler. And yes,when there's interaction there can be cueing. But if you don't dogs will not search every seam and hole he has toand you will miss dope. And from what I read about the system the dog will not work in prey drive when the handler has a lot of influence on the dog.
About the shredding of towels. During training you often have many hides for the dog. You want the dog to learn how to search systematically and you want to imprint the scents. Training is often for more than 1 dog. When there are 6 or 7 hides per dog that day that means a lot of shredded towels and a lot of scent. When the first dog shreds his towel near the hide it would be useless to use the same area for training the other dogs. The same goes for certification.


----------



## Jan Wensink (Sep 17, 2010)

Lou Castle said:


> My original comments are in black. Jan's responses to them are in bold. My NEW comments are in blue.
> 
> *I don't need a professor to tell me what scent is. That's what the dogs are for and they know exactly what it is. *
> *Packaging makes a difference as to whether scent is present or not. But if it is, the dog should alert. You shouldn't have to "read" his "ear carriage" to tell if he's got scent or not. *
> ...


Maybe it's my English but I think you totally misunderstood me. The dog doesn't alert on cut masking odors etc. My point is that drugs consist of many ingredients. These ingredients together make the scent pattern. If some parts of this scent pattern penetrate the packaging and other parts are stopped, the scent pattern may change. The dog might recognize it a bit but not completely. Enough for behavior change but not for an alert. The difference in size of certain molecules is eg used in toxic gas detection.


----------



## Jan Wensink (Sep 17, 2010)

Lou Castle said:


> My original comments are in black. Jan's responses to them are in bold. My NEW comments are in blue.
> _*"Regularly" is not really that hard to characterize. For example, finding "hundreds of kilos" every three days would be a bit different than finding the same amount every three years. *_
> 
> _*Dozens of kilo's dozens of times, hundreds of kilo's several times a year. *_
> ...


Sometimes we don't find anything for months and sometimes we find contraband several times a week.
It's not a constant process.


----------



## Jan Wensink (Sep 17, 2010)

Lou Castle said:


> My original comments are in black. Jan's responses to them are in bold. My NEW comments are in blue.
> 
> _*When I see the quality of our dogs and our training I don't think we have to be ashamed for that. I've seen many dogs from several countries and our dogs are at least as good as their best dogs. *_
> _*Everyone takes pride in what they do, even if it's crummy work. And I'm certainly not saying that yours is. It sounds a bit like you've lost your objectivity and are taking this personally. I've said nothing about the quality of your dogs or your training. Just pointing out issues with a handler supplied reward system. *_


We do take pride in what we do and we try the improve our level. When something like this is said:
(I quote: "It seems that because you have lower standards as to what you can inspect there, you've trained to those lower standards. We have the same lowered expectation of privacy when entering the US but that's not an excuse to train to a lower standard. This is the unintended consequence of not having to train to a standard that preserves an expectation of privacy".) it's hard not to take it personal. We also assist the police and LEO's, we do the same certification and have good results.
I doubt if the handler supplied reward is to blame but the handler who is used by his colleagues to get pc for a search.


----------



## Jan Wensink (Sep 17, 2010)

Lou Castle said:


> My original comments are in black. Jan's responses to them are in bold. My NEW comments are in blue.
> _*This is the unintended consequence of not having to train to a standard that preserves an expectation of privacy. *_
> 
> _* You just told me that the USA need another system of training because the results are so bad that the use of dogs for pc is questioned. I'm sure there are many excellent detector dog teams in the USA but when there are many with lack of training, knowledge and need video's for their training , whose standards are low than? *_*
> ...


*

Maybe the standard for pc is too high for officers seem to feel the need to violate the rules all the time.
We are doing inspections on our entry point on a daily basis, just like every Customs service all over the world. When you want to fly, you will be searched at the airport. It's not considered a violation for you have a choice. Fly and get inspected or go home. When you want want to import goods into Europe you have the same choice. You accept that they can be inspected. And how am I violating someone''s privacy by checking his bananas? Most inspections don't give results like most people on an airport aren't terrorists. Does this make them improper searches?
And there are very few errors by the dog and by handler interpretation.*


----------



## Jan Wensink (Sep 17, 2010)

Lou Castle said:


> My original comments are in black. Jan's responses to them are in bold. My NEW comments are in blue.
> The absence of such a requirement in your situation allows you to consistently violate the privacy of the people that you deal with. Again referring to the article that started this discussion, those dogs have a failure rate of 80%. Even given alerts on residual odor, systems that allow for calling such things as _"stiff front legs, excited tail waving, or specially spread ears"_ also allows for a huge amount of improper privacy violations. As the NSW Upper House Greens MP David Shoebridge said _"on average inappropriate searches are being undertaken 40 times a day in his state. No test which has an 80 per cent error rate could be considered a reasonable basis on which to conduct an intrusive public search of a citizen going about their daily business,"_ he said. Now in your case it's not "people going about their daily business," nonetheless, it appears that you're working to the same standard, handler interpretation, as they are.


The article that started this discussion was about *POLICE* dogs in *AUSTRALIA* not Customs in Holland. I don't suppose your CBP need pc for a search and work to the same standard as we do. 
I always understood they have some of the best and best trained dog teams in the USA.


----------



## David Frost (Mar 29, 2006)

Jan Wensink said:


> I don't suppose your CBP need pc for a search and work to the same standard as we do.
> I always understood they have some of the best and best trained dog teams in the USA.


Jan, like most countries, once you present yourself at a border crossing, they can inspect, search, disassemble, x-ray, anything they feel they need to do. The only reason they need is the fact you are trying to enter the country. PC is not needed at a border crossing. 

DFrost


----------



## Jan Wensink (Sep 17, 2010)

David Frost said:


> Jan, like most countries, once you present yourself at a border crossing, they can inspect, search, disassemble, x-ray, anything they feel they need to do. The only reason they need is the fact you are trying to enter the country. PC is not needed at a border crossing.
> DFrost


Thanks, I see no reason why that has anything to do with the standards or qualities of dog units.


----------



## David Frost (Mar 29, 2006)

Nor do I. But then, I've never seen and I am very skeptical of those who say they have, the perfect dog. 

DFrost


----------



## Drew Skaggs (Dec 22, 2011)

This is one of the best discussions / debates I have read to date on here.


----------



## Lou Castle (Apr 4, 2006)

Jan Wensink said:


> Of course a dog will have to be physically fit. Detection work is top sport. But for long searches I refer to my previous answer.


To remind folks, previously you wrote, _"but [you] want to increase the period that the dog is able to search, both physically and mentally and *the way to do that are long searches."*_ [Bold Emphasis Added] Here's the problem with your method. You can't control how fast a dog works to any significant degree. Some dogs work very fast and some are much slower and more methodical. When ANY dog gets tired he slows down. This lessens how much conditioning he's getting, lowering the effectiveness of any gains in strength, stamina and aerobic conditioning. It's like a runner who slows down when he gets tired. There's not as much benefit as if he kept up his speed. But a dog that's either running beside a bicycle, or one who's swimming can be kept at the higher speed giving MORE benefit to the exercise session. 

Another problem with just doing longer searches for the sake of conditioning is the issue of nasal fatigue. You can easily get a dog who looks like he's searching but his nose has reached the point where it's not detecting as efficiently as it was before, and so you're more likely to miss. It's one thing if this happens in training, it's quite another if it happens on real searches. I'm hoping that you don't prolong real searches as part of your dog's conditioning. 



Jan Wensink said:


> I already told you about the drugs that were packed in 10+ layers of tape and latex. Drugs in beams of woo, drugs hidden in barrels with frozen fruit juice, in big machines and hydraulic equimment. I could give you a thousand examples. We deal with every kind of goods under every possible circumstance.
> If you always expect a full alertthan, Im afraid you missed a lot of dope in your days.


Jan this post tells me volumes about what you know about detection work and how you actually work. If you think that a dog won't give a full alert because the drugs are hidden in any of the circumstances that you've described, you really have no idea of what a properly selected, trained and handled detection dog is capable of. 

The fact is that MANY scents that interest a dog (other than the trained scent) can bring about a change in ear carriage, stiff leggedness and tail waving. It really makes no difference in your situation but in situations where there is an expectation of privacy these things are important. 

It's not that I "always expect a full alert" it's that I got it. Drugs in diesel gas tanks, packed in barrels containing salami, welded into the frames of cars, INSIDE a hydraulic ram on a cherry picker and "thousands" of other examples where crooks thought that distracting or masking odors would distract the dog or hide the dope . 



Jan Wensink said:


> I made the remark about the shredded towels because you seem a little obsessed with this system and I knew I would get a reply.


Of course you'd get a reply when you spread nonsense, as you did. If I seem obsessed it's because I'm sick and tired of systems that require handlers to "read" a dog to call an alert. It allows for handlers to cue their dogs anytime they want. It allows for false alerts and it allows for misses. A dog's indication should be so evident that someone who knows nothing about dogs can see the change in his behavior. Since you bring it up, you seem just as obsessed with your system. You've been adamantly defending it since you entered this discussion, in spite of it's obvious shortcomings. But you don't see me taking cheap shots and intentionally putting out misinformation about it. 



Jan Wensink said:


> I don't have the power to change our system


So in reality your comment that you _"don't feel the need to change it"_ meant nothing, since you don't have that power. 



Jan Wensink said:


> but I work and train on a daily basis with people who can. If I would find it worth the effort I could interest them.


And I stayed at a Holiday Inn Express last night! Lol



Jan Wensink said:


> I'm not an american LEO. Getting authorisation for the LEO part of the site would be a bit complicated


Can you show me where the site says that it's limited to American LEO's? Somehow I missed it. There are Europeans, Aussies, and New Zealanders on it. As long as you are a full time paid LEO or military K−9 handler, you are eligible. 



Jan Wensink said:


> so my information is limited. A few points about the system are:
> I think lots of dogs that are now very good detector dogs do not fit in this system.


Quite true. They don't have high enough drive levels. How good those dogs are is a matter of opinion. THAT'S THE POINT! That's the purpose for selection testing, so you can select the proper dog for the job and get the most out of him as possible. 



Jan Wensink said:


> I have my doubts about a system where the handler has less influence. The role in the handler in a dog team is vital.


I'll disagree. Any system that requires that the handler read the dog to call an alert is flawed. The LESS involved the handler is in this, the better. 



Jan Wensink said:


> Our dogs work best when there's a constant interaction with the handler.


I understand and agree. Some systems require that the handler constantly reinforce his dog. Such a system required interpretation, an educated guess. There's significant room for error. It makes little difference in your situation. It does where more reliability is required. Does it ever happen that you are called to a location where drugs have already been found. How much of your work concerns finds that your dog makes prior to such a call? 



Jan Wensink said:


> And yes,when there's interaction there can be cueing.


Thanks for making my argument for me. 



Jan Wensink said:


> But if you don't dogs will not search every seam and hole he has toand you will miss dope.


Let's not be silly OK Jan? The handler in this system directs the dog where to search but that's pretty much all he does regarding the search. If the dog misses a _"seam or hole"_ the handler just brings him back to it. You write as if he's sitting back in the car having a sandwich. I suggest that you watch the video that shows this on the site again. You've obviously missed this fact. "Handler influence" in this context means that the handler influences the dog's behavior, not where he searches. There's a difference between cuing a dog and direciting him where to search . 



Jan Wensink said:


> And from what I read about the system the dog will not work in prey drive when the handler has a lot of influence on the dog.


Whatever are you talking about? That's just ludicrous statement. The system is BASED on prey drive. Where on the site does it say this? As I've said, it's plain that you lack understanding of the system. In such a situation you'd be better off to ask questions than to make assumptions. Once again I suggest that you sign up for the site so that you won't make such statements again. 



Jan Wensink said:


> About the shredding of towels. During training you often have many hides for the dog. You want the dog to learn how to search systematically and you want to imprint the scents.


Imprinting is done at the start of the training. *The towels are not scented after that. * This is absolutely incorrect. That too is on the site. You REALLY do not understand the system, as I've said repeatedly. You just proved it again. You're talking about something that you know nothing about. 



Jan Wensink said:


> Maybe it's my English but I think you totally misunderstood me. The dog doesn't alert on cut masking odors etc. My point is that drugs consist of many ingredients. These ingredients together make the scent pattern. If some parts of this scent pattern penetrate the packaging and other parts are stopped, the scent pattern may change. The dog might recognize it a bit but not completely. Enough for behavior change but not for an alert. The difference in size of certain molecules is eg used in toxic gas detection.


Rest assured that your English is far better than my command of ANY other language. 

I know about this fact Jan. The fact that you thought that I didn't know this is pretty funny. 

Here's where a little knowledge is a dangerous thing. You're adjusting science to fit what you're doing. Anyone who's been involved in drugs for any time at all has found drugs over and over under just these circumstances. Relying on _ some parts _ of a drug (meaning chemical constitutents) to penetrate packaging and then for the dog to alert on them would be thrown out of court anywhere in the US. Dogs must alert ONLY on the scent of the drugs, not some chemical that is part of their makeup. Here, if a dog finds legal substances he's not any good for establishing PC. 

Since just about every drug shipment is packed in plastic I'd bet that your dog would hit on nothing but plastic. I bet that he'd show you his "ear spread, stiff legs and waving tail. 



Jan Wensink said:


> Sometimes we don't find anything for months and sometimes we find contraband several times a week.
> It's not a constant process.


Didja ever go fishing? Didja ever catch all the fish? 



Jan Wensink said:


> Maybe the standard for pc is too high for officers seem to feel the need to violate the rules all the time.


It's hardly _"all the time."_ The standard is the standard. If some can't play by the rules then they need to get out of LE. Mcdonald's is always looking for a few good burger flippers. 



Jan Wensink said:


> We are doing inspections on our entry point on a daily basis, just like every Customs service all over the world. When you want to fly, you will be searched at the airport. It's not considered a violation for you have a choice. Fly and get inspected or go home. When you want want to import goods into Europe you have the same choice. You accept that they can be inspected. And how am I violating someone''s privacy by checking his bananas? Most inspections don't give results like most people on an airport aren't terrorists. Does this make them improper searches?


You may recall that this discussion started with privacy violations in Oz, then morphed into a discussion of 4th amendment rights in the US and the reliability of the dog. You've introduced what is probably the lowest level or reliability that is required for any detection dog, that of a dog searching at a country's entry points. What is allowed there would not be allowed here. As I've said, apples and oranges. 

The rules say that there is no expectation of privacy at an international border. A person can be searched at any point of entry. That having been said, we both know that if your dog shows the body language that leads you to believe that he has detected contraband, that you'll delve deeper into that person's property than you normally would have. 



Jan Wensink said:


> And there are very few errors by the dog and by handler interpretation.


I'll disagree. I think there are MANY errors that occur thorugh handler interpretation. Let's leave out the few hits on residual odor that occur and look at the article that inspired this thread. 80% falses is a HUGE and UNACCEPTABLE number. It is a fact that dogs that false will also miss because their foundation work is skewed. 



Jan Wensink said:


> The article that started this discussion was about *POLICE* dogs in *AUSTRALIA* not Customs in Holland. I don't suppose your CBP need pc for a search and work to the same standard as we do.


And you think that the ONLY place in the world that this is going on is with the police dogs in Oz? ROFL. 

The discussion about PC is a separate one from border crossings. But the issues of working the dog and reliability are the same.


----------



## Lou Castle (Apr 4, 2006)

David Frost said:


> Nor do I. But then, I've never seen and I am very skeptical of those who say they have, the perfect dog.
> 
> DFrost


I have yet to see anyone say such a thing in this discussion.


----------



## Jan Wensink (Sep 17, 2010)

Lou Castle said:


> To remind folks, previously you wrote, _"but [you] want to increase the period that the dog is able to search, both physically and mentally and *the way to do that are long searches."*_ [Bold Emphasis Added] Here's the problem with your method. You can't control how fast a dog works to any significant degree. Some dogs work very fast and some are much slower and more methodical. When ANY dog gets tired he slows down. This lessens how much conditioning he's getting, lowering the effectiveness of any gains in strength, stamina and aerobic conditioning. It's like a runner who slows down when he gets tired. There's not as much benefit as if he kept up his speed. But a dog that's either running beside a bicycle, or one who's swimming can be kept at the higher speed giving MORE benefit to the exercise session.


Nobody denies the fact that you need a fit and healthy dog for this kind of work. It's a basic requirment. But long searches do increase his capabilities to search for a longer time. And I don't care if he's getting very tired from time to time. The dogs are all high drive and is not that they don't wanna play their game again. And it's training so what if he misses a hide because he's losing effectivity? We have to work under very difficult conditions regularly and we know the dog will work than.


----------



## Jan Wensink (Sep 17, 2010)

Lou Castle said:


> Jan this post tells me volumes about what you know about detection work and how you actually work. If you think that a dog won't give a full alert because the drugs are hidden in any of the circumstances that you've described, you really have no idea of what a properly selected, trained and handled detection dog is capable of.
> *I think I have a good idea what a dog can and cannot do. I have seen some miracles and I have seen some disappointing things. In general it is the most reliable and flexible detection tool there is.
> *
> The fact is that MANY scents that interest a dog (other than the trained scent) can bring about a change in ear carriage, stiff leggedness and tail waving. It really makes no difference in your situation but in situations where there is an expectation of privacy these things are important.
> ...


----------



## Jan Wensink (Sep 17, 2010)

Lou Castle said:


> Of course you'd get a reply when you spread nonsense, as you did. If I seem obsessed it's because I'm sick and tired of systems that require handlers to "read" a dog to call an alert. It allows for handlers to cue their dogs anytime they want. It allows for false alerts and it allows for misses. A dog's indication should be so evident that someone who knows nothing about dogs can see the change in his behavior. Since you bring it up, you seem just as obsessed with your system. You've been adamantly defending it since you entered this discussion, in spite of it's obvious shortcomings. But you don't see me taking cheap shots and intentionally putting out misinformation about it.
> *Well, I read your posts and see you spreading nonsense about me, my work and that of several other handlers and members of this board. Twisting what people said and deliberately misinterpreting information they provid. *
> 
> So in reality your comment that you _"don't feel the need to change it"_ meant nothing, since you don't have that power.
> ...


----------



## Jan Wensink (Sep 17, 2010)

Lou Castle said:


> Rest assured that your English is far better than my command of ANY other language.
> 
> I know about this fact Jan. The fact that you thought that I didn't know this is pretty funny.
> *If the scent molecules of the trained odor is available, a properly selected, trained and handled dog should alert. If you're claiming that some other scent might draw an alert, I'll have to say that your dog is not properly trained or handled. You're looking for (insert the contraband substance here) ... If your dog alerts on cut, masking odors, distracting odors, or packaging odors, he's wrong. Perhaps that's acceptable where you work. Here it's not. *
> ...


----------



## Jan Wensink (Sep 17, 2010)

Lou Castle said:


> *Originally Posted by Jan Wensink ***
> _*Maybe the standard for pc is too high for officers seem to feel the need to violate the rules all the time.
> *_
> It's hardly _"all the time."_ The standard is the standard. If some can't play by the rules then they need to get out of LE. Mcdonald's is always looking for a few good burger flippers.
> ...


----------



## Jan Wensink (Sep 17, 2010)

Lou Castle said:


> You may recall that this discussion started with privacy violations in Oz, then morphed into a discussion of 4th amendment rights in the US and the reliability of the dog. You've introduced what is probably the lowest level or reliability that is required for any detection dog, that of a dog searching at a country's entry points. What is allowed there would not be allowed here. As I've said, apples and oranges.
> *Yes but it was your suggestion that as we don't deal with pc alot we would have lower standards of training.*
> 
> The rules say that there is no expectation of privacy at an international border. A person can be searched at any point of entry. That having been said, we both know that if your dog shows the body language that leads you to believe that he has detected contraband, that you'll delve deeper into that person's property than you normally would have.
> ...


----------



## Lou Castle (Apr 4, 2006)

Jan Wensink said:


> And I don't care if he's getting very tired from time to time.


You should. With your system, that requires you to interpret his body language, the more tired he gets the more subtle will be his cues. Perhaps you are skilled enough of a handler to see the changes, I know that many are not.

 In the following response my original comments are in black. Jan's new comments are in bold and my responses to his comments are in blue.  

Jan this post tells me volumes about what you know about detection work and how you actually work. If you think that a dog won't give a full alert because the drugs are hidden in any of the circumstances that you've described, you really have no idea of what a properly selected, trained and handled detection dog is capable of.

* I think I have a good idea what a dog can and cannot do. I have seen some miracles and I have seen some disappointing things. In general it is the most reliable and flexible detection tool there is. * 

 I'm sure that you think you have a good idea of this. 

* Distracting and masking odors don''t make much of a difference. Packaging does to some extent. * 

 Not to any significant extent if you have a properly selected, trained and handled dog. If scent is present, he should alert.  

* If it did n't work the cartels would have stopped using it long ago. I'm convinced that they test their contraband. Can it be detected by a dog, a scan etc. * 

Jan if this was true we'd NEVER find any contraband. They have to put their product into some sort of packaging Plastic is convenient, cheap and readily available. But anyone who knows anything about packaging will tell you that plastic, on a microscopic level is quite porous. AND in packing the material it's all but impossible to avoid contamination on the outside of it. When that happens, nothing has to permeate the plastic for a dog to make a find.  
* Well, I read your posts and see you spreading nonsense about me, my work and that of several other handlers and members of this board. Twisting what people said and deliberately misinterpreting information they provid. * 

 I'll disagree that I'm doing any of these things Jan. And until and unless you show posts that have me _"spreading nonsense about [you, your] work and that of several other handlers and members of this board"_ I'll say that this is not true.  

* Maybe not the power to change the whole system but I would surely have the influence to train 1 dog in this system as an experiment. * 

 Yes, Jan of course you have this much influence. Lol. Problem is, as we'll see in just a moment, it's too much trouble for you to confirm that you're indeed a LE officer, so you'll never know, and as we've seen you don't understand the system.  

Can you show me where the site says that it's limited to American LEO's? Somehow I missed it. There are Europeans, Aussies, and New Zealanders on it. As long as you are a full time paid LEO or military K−9 handler, you are eligible.

* If you have to prove that you are a LEO one way or another it's not worth the trouble for me. * 

 I feel a Groucho Marx quotation coming on ......... "I don't want to belong to any club that would accept people like me as a member!" ROFL.  

* So this system is not the solution for the problems concerning false alerts in the USA. The pool of dogs is limited and there are just not enough suitable dogs for that.. * 

 You have no idea how many _"suitable dogs"_ for this system there are in the US. Now you're just whistling in the dark. It would be far better to have half the number of dogs working if they were trained with this system. But more than likely there is a huge number of dogs that would be suitable. We're just talking about pronounced prey drive here, not much beyond that. And since many breeds are being selected for that lots dogs would be capable of it. They just haven't been tested.  

* Every dog in Europe that retrieves a tennis ball more than once is shipped to the US. * 

 Probably better for this discussion if in this sort of thing we stuck to facts. But you probably think this is an example of your sense of humor, like so many others who hide behind this.  

Does it ever happen that you are called to a location where drugs have already been found. How much of your work concerns finds that your dog makes prior to such a call? 

* It has nothing to do with reinforcing the dog but with handling.You let the dog search as independently as possible, you observe what he searches properly and what not. When he makes contact with you, you make him search the places he forgets. * 

 He really hasn't _"forgot[ten]"_ anything. But perhaps this is a translation issue.

Thanks for making my argument for me.  

Let's not be silly OK Jan? The handler in this system directs the dog where to search but that's pretty much all he does regarding the search. If the dog misses a "seam or hole" the handler just brings him back to it. You write as if he's sitting back in the car having a sandwich. I suggest that you watch the video that shows this on the site again. You've obviously missed this fact. "Handler influence" in this context means that the handler influences the dog's behavior, not where he searches. There's a difference between cuing a dog and directing him where to search.

* When you direct him where to search there is room for cuing. * 

 AGAIN you demonstrate that you don't understand this system. In this system, even if the handler tried to cue the dog, he could not. These dog know that the target odor is not present and he knows that no matter how much he digs, (or whatever alert is in use) it's not going to appear. In fact during the training the handler INTENTIONALLY TRIES TO GET THE DOG TO FALSE ALERT to see if there's a problem in the training. If he is successful then it's a simple matter of going back to the fundamentals. This typically takes less than an hour, 2-3 exercises.  

* When you direct him again and again to the same place you can cue him. * 

If you have a handler intentionally doing this then he's forgotten his job. Sorry, failing a handler who is intentionally doing the wrong thing, this can't happen with this system. With your system it can happen even if the handler is doing everything as he should. The dog knows that his prey is not there no matter how many times you direct him to the same area. Since he's working for himself, that is to find his prey, he knows that since the scent isn't there, no amount of flushing behavior, is going to make it appear. With your system, where the handler supplies the reward, and the dog knows it, the dog can cue a handler into throwing in his toy. Perhaps you are a good enough handler so that you'll never do this, but we know that not everyone is that good.  

* Wrong of course but no difference with a system with a handler supplied reward. * 

 Since you really don't understand this system you don't know how wrong this comment is.  

* I have my doubt about no false alerts in this system but without enough directing I think there will be a lot of misses. * 

 If it was just me saying it, your doubts might be understandable. But there's at least one member of this forum who has trained with this system and HE TOO reports *"no false alerts."[/i]*  

Imprinting is done at the start of the training. *The towels are not scented after that. * [emphasis here is mine and original] This is absolutely incorrect. That too is on the site. You REALLY do not understand the system, as I've said repeatedly. You just proved it again. You're talking about something that you know nothing about. 

* I didn't mention scented towels. Scented or not, when a dog is allowed to shred a towel for maybe a minute near the hide he will produce an enormous amount of contamination. * 

 ROFL. Jan, AGAIN you show us how little you understand about this stuff.  

* Scent from his paws, saliva and the towel will make it impossible for he next dog to do a normal search. * 

Sorry Jan. Perhaps that is the case with your dogs and your system. But since none of these things smell like the target odor, these dogs just ignore the towels from previous searches. Here's a clue for you Jan. THE TOWEL IS NOT THE TARGET. In fact in training, previously shredded towels are left on the ground. Other dogs in that training session just walk right over the top of them to make the finds. It would probably be better if, instead of making assumptions like this one, that are wrong, and then jumping to conclusions, if you actually read the material. But that means that you'd have to join the site.

I have no idea what you consider to be a _"normal search."_ But If your dogs are distracted by such things (as they must be or you'd not be saying this) or they can't search as well after such contamination well ................


----------



## Lou Castle (Apr 4, 2006)

If the scent molecules of the trained odor is available, a properly selected, trained and handled dog should alert. If you're claiming that some other scent might draw an alert, I'll have to say that your dog is not properly trained or handled. You're looking for (insert the contraband substance here) ... If your dog alerts on cut, masking odors, distracting odors, or packaging odors, he's wrong. Perhaps that's acceptable where you work. Here it's not.

* To properly answer this I quote from your earlier post. You implied that my dog would alert on cut, masking odors, distracting odors or packaging odors. * 

 No I didn't imply this at all Jan. I said VERY CLEARLY _"If your dog alerts ..."_  

* A dog never reacts on coke but on the whole scent picture. If you ask someone how coke smells he will say: I smell solvents, gasoline, etc. * 

 Coke smells like coke. It does not _"smell like solvents gasoline, etc."_ Just wondering since you say _"a dog never reacts on coke,"_ what if you're searching for pharmaceutical cocaine which is 99% pure? Will your dog find it? There are no solvents or gasoline present and you just said, _"a dog never reacts on coke."_ With your dog finding solvents and gasoline NO WONDER there's so much emphasis on "unproductive responses!" Detection dogs SHOULD BE TRAINED ON THE PUREST FORM OF EACH DRUG THAT IS AVAILABLE. That is the ONLY way that you can be sure that's what he searching for. AFTER he knows what the correct target odor is, it's the contraband, NOT the solvents or gasoline, THEN you introduce the other odors to proof him off them.  

* Do you think the dog doesn't use that when he alerts? * 

 AMAZING! If your dog alerts on these substances, he's finding _"solvents, gasoline etc."_ Perhaps that's acceptable where you work. It's not here in the US. Here Police K−9's who find legal substances are worthless.  

* When you pack it with 10 layers perhaps the scent of solvents has less problems penetrating than the coke scent. The scent on the outside of the package will be a bit different and the dog is in doubt, alert or not. Nothing to do with proper training * 

 Again Jan, if your dog alerts on these substances and contraband is not present he'd be worthless here in the US. In your situation, it's obvious that you have a much lower standard as to what you can do after an alert and so, it seems that you train to that standard. Apples and oranges again.  

Here's where a little knowledge is a dangerous thing. You're adjusting science to fit what you're doing. Anyone who's been involved in drugs for any time at all has found drugs over and over under just these circumstances. Relying on some parts of a drug (meaning chemical constitutents) to penetrate packaging and then for the dog to alert on them would be thrown out of court anywhere in the US. Dogs must alert ONLY on the scent of the drugs, not some chemical that is part of their makeup. Here, if a dog finds legal substances he's not any good for establishing PC.

* We have scientific back-up.No adjusting but using it and again it's not about finding legal substances but these substances are a part of the trained odor. * 

 So you train your dogs to find these legal substances. Very interesting. These substances ARE NOT _"part of the trained odor."_ (In the discussion at hand) COCAINE is the ONLY odor that the dogs should be looking for, not _"solvents gasoline, etc."_  

You may recall that this discussion started with privacy violations in Oz, then morphed into a discussion of 4th amendment rights in the US and the reliability of the dog. You've introduced what is probably the lowest level or reliability that is required for any detection dog, that of a dog searching at a country's entry points. What is allowed there would not be allowed here. As I've said, apples and oranges.

* Yes but it was your suggestion that as we don't deal with pc alot we would have lower standards of training. * 

 Jan you've just told us that your dogs alert on _"solvents, gasoline, etc."_ I'd certainly call that "a lower stand of training." Our dogs in the US (except at border crossings of course) can't alert on those substances. Therefore we must hone in on the odor of the drug itself, NOT contaminants such as solvents and gasoline.  

The rules say that there is no expectation of privacy at an international border. A person can be searched at any point of entry. That having been said, we both know that if your dog shows the body language that leads you to believe that he has detected contraband, that you'll delve deeper into that person's property than you normally would have.

* So if we delve into someone's merchandise and destroy something he's compensated. * 

 Really!? How are you going to compensate someone for destruction of a family heirloom? How about something that's irreplaceable? How about something that's priceless?  

I'll disagree. I think there are MANY errors that occur through handler interpretation. Let's leave out the few hits on residual odor that occur and look at the article that inspired this thread. 80% falses is a HUGE and UNACCEPTABLE number. It is a fact that dogs that false will also miss because their foundation work is skewed.

* Of course it's an incredible number and I believe it has nothing to do with the dogs but is used as an easy reason to search a car. * 

 I'd bet that it was a combination of the two.


----------



## Jan Wensink (Sep 17, 2010)

Lou Castle said:


> You should. With your system, that requires you to interpret his body language, the more tired he gets the more subtle will be his cues. Perhaps you are skilled enough of a handler to see the changes, I know that many are not.
> 
> Jan this post tells me volumes about what you know about detection work and how you actually work. If you think that a dog won't give a full alert because the drugs are hidden in any of the circumstances that you've described, you really have no idea of what a properly selected, trained and handled detection dog is capable of.
> 
> ...


----------



## Jan Wensink (Sep 17, 2010)

Lou Castle said:


> *Distracting and masking odors don''t make much of a difference. Packaging does to some extent. *
> Not to any significant extent if you have a properly selected, trained and handled dog. If scent is present, he should alert.
> *If it did n't work the cartels would have stopped using it long ago. I'm convinced that they test their contraband. Can it be detected by a dog, a scan etc. *
> Jan if this was true we'd NEVER find any contraband. They have to put their product into some sort of packaging Plastic is convenient, cheap and readily available. But anyone who knows anything about packaging will tell you that plastic, on a microscopic level is quite porous. AND in packing the material it's all but impossible to avoid contamination on the outside of it. When that happens, nothing has to permeate the plastic for a dog to make a find.


I'm not going to repeat the same things over and over again.


----------



## Jan Wensink (Sep 17, 2010)

Lou Castle said:


> *Maybe not the power to change the whole system but I would surely have the influence to train 1 dog in this system as an experiment. *
> Yes, Jan of course you have this much influence. Lol. Problem is, as we'll see in just a moment, it's too much trouble for you to confirm that you're indeed a LE officer, so you'll never know, and as we've seen you don't understand the system.
> Can you show me where the site says that it's limited to American LEO's? Somehow I missed it. There are Europeans, Aussies, and New Zealanders on it. As long as you are a full time paid LEO or military K−9 handler, you are eligible.
> *If you have to prove that you are a LEO one way or another it's not worth the trouble for me. *
> I feel a Groucho Marx quotation coming on ......... "I don't want to belong to any club that would accept people like me as a member!" ROFL.


Well, I know that I am and don't care what you feel or think. This forum is a hobby and I'm not really interested. And I don't want to provide more information on the net and not knowing what will happen with it.


----------



## Jan Wensink (Sep 17, 2010)

Lou Castle said:


> *So this system is not the solution for the problems concerning false alerts in the USA. The pool of dogs is limited and there are just not enough suitable dogs for that.. *
> You have no idea how many _"suitable dogs"_ for this system there are in the US. Now you're just whistling in the dark. It would be far better to have half the number of dogs working if they were trained with this system. But more than likely there is a huge number of dogs that would be suitable. We're just talking about pronounced prey drive here, not much beyond that. And since many breeds are being selected for that lots dogs would be capable of it. They just haven't been tested.
> *Every dog in Europe that retrieves a tennis ball more than once is shipped to the US. *
> Probably better for this discussion if in this sort of thing we stuck to facts. But you probably think this is an example of your sense of humor, like so many others who hide behind this.


Let's see if in ten years this system is used everywhere and false alerts are not a problem anymore.


----------



## Jan Wensink (Sep 17, 2010)

Lou Castle said:


> Let's not be silly OK Jan? The handler in this system directs the dog where to search but that's pretty much all he does regarding the search. If the dog misses a "seam or hole" the handler just brings him back to it. You write as if he's sitting back in the car having a sandwich. I suggest that you watch the video that shows this on the site again. You've obviously missed this fact. "Handler influence" in this context means that the handler influences the dog's behavior, not where he searches. There's a difference between cuing a dog and directing him where to search.
> *When you direct him where to search there is room for cuing. *
> 
> AGAIN you demonstrate that you don't understand this system. In this system, even if the handler tried to cue the dog, he could not. These dog know that the target odor is not present and he knows that no matter how much he digs, (or whatever alert is in use) it's not going to appear. In fact during the training the handler INTENTIONALLY TRIES TO GET THE DOG TO FALSE ALERT to see if there's a problem in the training. If he is successful then it's a simple matter of going back to the fundamentals. This typically takes less than an hour, 2-3 exercises.


Sounds just like training a dog in any other system


----------



## Jan Wensink (Sep 17, 2010)

Lou Castle said:


> *I didn't mention scented towels. Scented or not, when a dog is allowed to shred a towel for maybe a minute near the hide he will produce an enormous amount of contamination. *
> ROFL. Jan, AGAIN you show us how little you understand about this stuff.
> *Scent from his paws, saliva and the towel will make it impossible for he next dog to do a normal search. *
> Sorry Jan. Perhaps that is the case with your dogs and your system. But since none of these things smell like the target odor, these dogs just ignore the towels from previous searches. Here's a clue for you Jan. THE TOWEL IS NOT THE TARGET. In fact in training, previously shredded towels are left on the ground. Other dogs in that training session just walk right over the top of them to make the finds. It would probably be better if, instead of making assumptions like this one, that are wrong, and then jumping to conclusions, if you actually read the material. But that means that you'd have to join the site.
> ...


So, you don't think it's a problem that near all the hides there's a lot of contamination? If I wanted the dog to train for distractions it would not be near the hide.


----------



## Jan Wensink (Sep 17, 2010)

Lou Castle said:


> If the scent molecules of the trained odor is available, a properly selected, trained and handled dog should alert. If you're claiming that some other scent might draw an alert, I'll have to say that your dog is not properly trained or handled. You're looking for (insert the contraband substance here) ... If your dog alerts on cut, masking odors, distracting odors, or packaging odors, he's wrong. Perhaps that's acceptable where you work. Here it's not.
> 
> *To properly answer this I quote from your earlier post. You implied that my dog would alert on cut, masking odors, distracting odors or packaging odors. *
> 
> ...


Sure, because in the US all police K-9's are trained with 99% pharmaceutical coke and not with confiscated quantities supplied by the DEA. *LIAR*.


----------



## Jan Wensink (Sep 17, 2010)

Lou Castle said:


> *When you pack it with 10 layers perhaps the scent of solvents has less problems penetrating than the coke scent. The scent on the outside of the package will be a bit different and the dog is in doubt, alert or not. Nothing to do with proper training *
> Again Jan, if your dog alerts on these substances and contraband is not present he'd be worthless here in the US. In your situation, it's obvious that you have a much lower standard as to what you can do after an alert and so, it seems that you train to that standard. Apples and oranges again.
> 
> Here's where a little knowledge is a dangerous thing. You're adjusting science to fit what you're doing. Anyone who's been involved in drugs for any time at all has found drugs over and over under just these circumstances. Relying on some parts of a drug (meaning chemical constitutents) to penetrate packaging and then for the dog to alert on them would be thrown out of court anywhere in the US. Dogs must alert ONLY on the scent of the drugs, not some chemical that is part of their makeup. Here, if a dog finds legal substances he's not any good for establishing PC.
> ...


We're solving problems instead of saying we never have any, only others have.


----------



## Jan Wensink (Sep 17, 2010)

Lou Castle said:


> You may recall that this discussion started with privacy violations in Oz, then morphed into a discussion of 4th amendment rights in the US and the reliability of the dog. You've introduced what is probably the lowest level or reliability that is required for any detection dog, that of a dog searching at a country's entry points. What is allowed there would not be allowed here. As I've said, apples and oranges.
> 
> *Yes but it was your suggestion that as we don't deal with pc alot we would have lower standards of training. *
> Jan you've just told us that your dogs alert on _"solvents, gasoline, etc."_ I'd certainly call that "a lower stand of training." Our dogs in the US (except at border crossings of course) can't alert on those substances. Therefore we must hone in on the odor of the drug itself, NOT contaminants such as solvents and gasoline.
> ...


It's my last reply. I'm getting a bit tired of the discussion. 
When the average detector dog in the USA has a success rate of about 90 % in training (from what I always read) how is it possible that in Australia that is only 20 %. So it's intentional. 
If a handler has had normal training a false alert might happen but they are rare.
If they would happen more often: train, if pdssible with a trainer or a colleague for you need blind searches


----------



## Jon Harris (Nov 23, 2011)

Well Ive been gone a couple weeks and see nothing has changed.

Lou, why don't you get your own thread that deals directly with your favored system and there you can explain, show, link to vids, and basically instruct anyone that whats to take the time to investigate your favored system. Yes I know it is not YOUR system but it is the one you promote.

Seems that would be a much more efficient way. When you see a post in another thread that you have to respond to, something anyone that has been here for any time will know is a predictable outcome, you could just post in your own thread., IF anyone wanted to read what you said that has not read the exact same thing over and over again, they could go you your LOU KNOWS thread.

This way you can dominate a thread all you want. In fact you could even site and copy parts of your own posts and then comment about those instead of populate the other threads to the point of killing them.

Just an idea.


----------



## Thomas Barriano (Mar 27, 2006)

Jon,

Very few would read a "Lou knows" thread 
Lou has his own e-collar discussion list
Lou has his own website
Donn Yarnall has his own website where HIS shredding detection system is explained in great detail by the originator.
Why don't people go there ? 
It's all about attention seeking IMO


----------



## Lou Castle (Apr 4, 2006)

Jan Wensink said:


> And I'm sure that you think you know almost everything.


Far from it Jan. But I do know a few things. One of them is that narcotic detector dogs should NOT alert on such things as _"solvents, gasoline, etc"_ as you've told us that your dogs do. They should alert ONLY on the contraband odor, NOT odors that may be associated with them. Guess what, EVERY CAR going down the road contains solvents and gasoline. 

Regarding the requirement to prove that one is an LEO to join a forum where the drive system is discussed at length Jan writes ... 



Jan Wensink said:


> Well, I know that I am and don't care what you feel or think. This forum is a hobby and I'm not really interested. And I don't want to provide more information on the net and not knowing what will happen with it.


Jan your second sentence tells me that you've not even read the front page of the site! You don't have to provide ANY _"more information on the net"_ to join Donn's website. 



Jan Wensink said:


> Let's see if in ten years this system is used everywhere and false alerts are not a problem anymore.


Of course it won't be _"used everywhere."_ Folks like you, who are invested in a handler supplied reward system, will fight it tooth and nail. Some have an entire career invested in such systems. Most changes result in some people being dragged, kicking and screaming in protest into the new system. Many people are forced into change against their will, by court decisions.

Some people have an open mind and are willing to, at least, look at the possibilities. Some don't. We know which group you're in. 

Earlier I wrote,


> In fact during the training the handler INTENTIONALLY TRIES TO GET THE DOG TO FALSE ALERT to see if there's a problem in the training ...


 [Emphasis Original] 



Jan Wensink said:


> Sounds just like training a dog in any other system


Jan are you saying that during training you do things like take the dog back to a single spot over and over enticing him to false alert? Are you saying that you'll circle a car 15 times, wiggle the handle of your toy while it's in your pocket or toss it in the air as your dog searches? Somehow I doubt that you do these things. 

Regarding the fact that there may be shredded towels in the area of hides during training Jan writes ...



Jan Wensink said:


> So, you don't think it's a problem that near all the hides there's a lot of contamination?


Jan this is one of those things that I DO KNOW. There is no problem with the drive training system, with the presence of towels shredded during previous training whether it's by THIS dog or other dogs, near a hide. They don't smell like target odor and so the dog pays no attention to them. It's obvious by your statement that this is an ENORMOUS problem for your dogs. Perhaps it's because they don't know what the target odor really is. They think that _"solvents, gasoline, etc."_ have something to do with it. 



Jan Wensink said:


> If I wanted the dog to train for distractions it would not be near the hide.


Of course not. You put the distractions on the other side of the room. Then the dog has to work through the distraction to get to the source. But since shredded towels do not hold the slightest bit of interest to these dogs, it's NOT a distraction, so it makes no difference where it is. But you've told us that _"Scent from his paws, saliva and the towel will make it impossible for the next dog to do a normal search,"_ telling us that this is an issue FOR *YOUR * DOGS. That tells us that they really don't know what the target odor is. 



Jan Wensink said:


> Sure, because in the US all police K-9's are trained with 99% pharmaceutical coke and not with confiscated quantities supplied by the DEA. *LIAR*.


Always good for a laugh when I thrash someone so soundly that he runs out of reasonable, rational argument, tries to twist something I've said, and then goes to name calling. Please show us ANYWHERE that I've said that _"in the US all police K−9's are trained with 99% pharmaceutical coke and not with confiscated quantities supplied by the DEA."_ 

* You're the LIAR * for insinuating that I've EVER made such a statement. 

Here's how the conversation went. You said,


> *A dog never reacts on coke *but on the whole scent picture. *If you ask someone how coke smells he will say: I smell solvents, gasoline, etc. *


 

And I responded,


> *Coke smells like coke. It does not "smell like solvents gasoline, etc." * Just wondering since you say "a dog never reacts on coke," *what if you're searching for pharmaceutical cocaine *which is 99% pure? *Will your dog find it? *There are no solvents or gasoline present and you just said, "a dog never reacts on coke." With your dog finding solvents and gasoline NO WONDER there's so much emphasis on "unproductive responses!" *Detection dogs SHOULD BE TRAINED ON THE PUREST FORM OF EACH DRUG THAT IS AVAILABLE. *That is the ONLY way that you can be sure that's what he searching for. AFTER he knows what the correct target odor is, it's the contraband, NOT the solvents or gasoline, THEN you introduce the other odors to proof him off them.


 [Bold Emphasis Added in both quotations]. 

I notice that you failed to answer my question, _"What if you're searching for pharmaceutical cocaine which is 99% pure? Will your dog find it?"_ I'll guess that since the pharmaceutical coke does not contain _"solvents, gasoline, etc."_ and you said that _"A dog never reacts on coke"_ that your dogs WILL NOT ALERT on it. I'd guess that the reason you turned to name calling was that it allowed you to avoid answering my very simple and-at-the-same-time VERY REVEALING question! 

BTW MANY departments in the USA don't get their supplies of narcotics for training from the DEA, that's a side point. But it's just another place that you're wrong. 

Earlier I wrote,


> So you train your dogs to find these legal substances. Very interesting. These substances ARE NOT "part of the trained odor." (In the discussion at hand) COCAINE is the ONLY odor that the dogs should be looking for, not "solvents gasoline, etc."





Jan Wensink said:


> We're solving problems instead of saying we never have any, only others have.


Another attempt to twist my words. How typical! Lol. I've NEVER said that the drive training system is free of problems. As with any system it's not perfect. But the problems are easily seen and easily and quickly fixed. The solutions are built into the system. But since it's too much trouble for you to join a website and actually do some reading, you'll never know. 



Jan Wensink said:


> When the average detector dog in the USA has a success rate of about 90 % in training (from what I always read) how is it possible that in Australia that is only 20 %. So it's intentional.


Perhaps it's intentional and perhaps it's not. Perhaps it's just because the handler supplied reward system they used is flawed and being applied poorly. 



Jan Wensink said:


> If a handler has had normal training a false alert might happen but they are rare.


No idea what "normal training" is. If your dogs alerts on _" solvents, gasoline, etc."_ as you’ve told us, then there will be LOTS of false alerts. If you were held to a higher standard you could not work a dog who does that. But since you're at a border crossing, it makes no difference in your work. Please don't try to pretend that false alerts _"rare[ly]"_ happen with such a dog. If, as you've told us, your dog _"... dog never reacts on coke."_ he's missing with great frequency. 

A handler supplied reward system allows for the handler to EASILY do the wrong thing, if he wants to. And certifications for these systems allow for misses and false alerts. They're built into it.


----------



## Lou Castle (Apr 4, 2006)

Jon Harris said:


> Well Ive been gone a couple weeks and see nothing has changed.


Nice assumption Jon. Actually quite a bit has changed. MANY people spurred by this discussion have inquired privately about the system. MANY of them have joined Donn's website. 



Jon Harris said:


> Lou, why don't you get your own thread that deals directly with your favored system and there you can explain, show, link to vids, and basically instruct anyone that whats to take the time to investigate your favored system. Yes I know it is not YOUR system but it is the one you promote.


Donn's website explains it far better than I could here. No need for me to duplicate what already exists. 



Jon Harris said:


> Seems that would be a much more efficient way.


I'll disagree. The information is already freely available to anyone who has a computer. 



Jon Harris said:


> When you see a post in another thread that you have to respond to, something anyone that has been here for any time will know is a predictable outcome, you could just post in your own thread.,


Thanks Jon. When you get to be the owner of this forum you can tell me what threads I should post in. Until then, I'll post anywhere that I like. 



Jon Harris said:


> This way you can dominate a thread all you want.


I guess this rudeness is more of your "sense of humor?" 



Jon Harris said:


> Just an idea.


Thanks for your input. ROFLMFAO.


----------



## Lou Castle (Apr 4, 2006)

Thomas Barriano said:


> Jon,
> 
> Very few would read a "Lou knows" thread


Thomas I've got an article on this site in the "Articles on Dog Training" section, entitled "Establishing Dominance." SEE IT HERE It's the ONLY sticky in that section, and has had more views than ALL but one other article there. So again, and as usual, you're wrong. 

BTW Thomas, do you have any training articles there? The only time I see your name as a thread starter there is when you ask questions about something. No articles of your own? lol



Thomas Barriano said:


> Lou has his own e-collar discussion list. Lou has his own website


Yes, I do. 



Thomas Barriano said:


> Donn Yarnall has his own website where HIS shredding detection system is explained in great detail by the originator.


Yes, he does. 



Thomas Barriano said:


> Why don't people go there ?


Many people do. But there's no reason not to discuss the topic here as well. I keep getting emails and private message telling me how happy those writers are that I keep this discussion going. Just a few posts back Drew Skaggs, wrote, _"This is one of the best discussions / debates I have read to date on here."_ 



Thomas Barriano said:


> It's all about attention seeking IMO


So much for Connie's request to keep personal comments out of this discussion! 

Thanks for your opinion Thomas. It would be fantastic if you'd ever learn that it's not the only one, and that usually, when dealing with me, it's wrong. Thanks for not disappointing. ROFL.


----------



## Jan Wensink (Sep 17, 2010)

When all my words are constantly twisted, I don't see any use in a further discussion. 
When we don't have a lot to do with pc our training standards are low, when I say something about coke having other ingredients I train my dog to find legal substances, not wanting to become a member of a website raises suspicion that I'm not a LEO, etc.
All nonsensical insinuations and not contributing to a fruitful debate..


----------

