# SAR and Law Enforcement



## Carol Boche (May 13, 2007)

I am interested to know about the relationships SAR folk have with Law Enforcement and vice versa. 

Here in South Dakota I have worked very hard to obtain and maintain a great relationship with the Law Enforcement. It helps that I am a reserve officer, I am sure. 

I have had law enforcement here tell me stories about SAR teams in the past and that shed some light on why it was difficult to start out with.


----------



## Nancy Jocoy (Apr 19, 2006)

We have been working very hard on this as well. We know we have to earn their respect and are doing every thing we can to do so.

I can understand hesitation based on things individuals (not on teams) have done in the past (mainly showing up and misrepresenting their abiities) and we have to realize that if WE mess up, it reflects badly on them.

I think time, and experience, will win out in the end; each year the number of callouts increases bit by bit (we only respond to calls FROM govt agencies) ...............from 9 in 2004 to (I think) about 30 in 2007.

One thing we have been doing after a call is mail a Quality Survey to the requesting agency asking them to rate different aspects of our response and provide suggestions for improvement.


----------



## Carol Boche (May 13, 2007)

Thank you Nancy, I agree with you. I like the idea of the Quality survey. Would you be willing to share some of the things you have on there. I am hoping some more members will chime in here as I think this would be a great way to learn some things to do and not do. 



Nancy Jocoy said:


> We have been working very hard on this as well. We know we have to earn their respect and are doing every thing we can to do so.
> 
> I can understand hesitation based on things individuals (not on teams) have done in the past (mainly showing up and misrepresenting their abiities) and we have to realize that if WE mess up, it reflects badly on them.
> 
> ...


----------



## Nancy Jocoy (Apr 19, 2006)

Carol these are the main [closed end questions] then we have some open ended - it is written up as a form with check boxesbut I just shared the content

____________________________________________________

Recently our team responded to a search call by your agency.
We strive to continuously improve our performance and your input is vital to this end. Please help us by taking a few minutes to answer our survey and return in the prepaid envelope. Thank you in advance.

Please rate all answers on a scale of 1 to 5, with 1 meaning strongly disagree and 5 meaning strongly agree.



Before the Search:

Contact information for our team was easy to find
Someone from our team responded quickly to your request for help
Your call was answered in a professional manner
Our requests for information from your agency to assist in our planning were reasonable and appropriate
Team members followed applicable “log in” procedures 

During the Search:

Team members arrived promptly at the designated place
Team members asked appropriate questions during briefing phase
Team members acted professionally 
Team members followed chain of command 
Team members appeared knowledgeable and proficient
Search management and strategy skills provided by the team (if applicable) demonstrated competency and efficiency (leave blank if not applicable)
Team members demonstrated appropriate radio communications
Team members completed assignments properly

After the Search:

Team gave comprehensive debriefing
Team followed applicable “log out” procedures
Team leadership was available after the search for follow up questions

_______________________

Thank you for taking the time and effort to respond. If you have additional comments that do not fit on this form, please attach them to this document. Your responses will be held in confidence.

May we provide a contact from your agency as a reference? 0Yes 0No 0Not Sure


----------



## Kim Gilmore (Feb 18, 2008)

Our relationship with our Sheriff is very strong as they don't have LE dogs and we are essentially non-sworn officers without arrest powers. Yes, we respond to whatever we feel secure in responding to that goes above and beyond the missing person call-out which may include armed and dangerous criminals (I will be honest in saying that it is a tad bit unsettling to be running after your dog on a hot track and having a SWAT team member locked and loaded with cross-hairs aimed just beyond the dogs nose chasing after you). This also incorporates article detection and HRD. Now that we have a very good relationship with the Border Patrol K9 guys, none of us have had ANY problems in deferring to them when it comes to the armed and dangerous running bad guys (as they own bullet proof vests which we do not. Neither agency runs bite dogs). So we let them tree the perps for SWAT as we come in behind with the detectives and search for the tossed evidence.

Kim Gilmore
NW Montana, USA


----------



## Nancy Jocoy (Apr 19, 2006)

Our big challenge down here is that most sherrifs department own several bloodhounds or bloodhound-redbone crosses and maybe a few other bite dogs. 

We use the cadaver dogs to open doors and rely on discussions and demos to discuss how we train our dogs differently - longer older trails, scent discriminating air scent, that they are not bite trained, and that we carry extensive liability ensurance and workmens comp. etc.

Another challenge is the paradigm, well entrenched in many quarter, that only a hound can scent discriminate.


----------



## Kim Gilmore (Feb 18, 2008)

One of the benefits of being a county run organization under direct jurisdictional power of the SO is that the workman's comp and liability are provided for you :-D .

Now then, you want to talk interesting, where-as the SO is interested in the cadaver dogs for homicides/suicides (and of course drownings), it's the local FIRE DEPARTMENTS that want us for cremains detection (something we don't train a lot for, but will be working toward). In the event of missing/unaccounted persons after a structure fire, their idea would be to request us on a mutual aid to run the dogs after things cooled off and safe for man and beast to see if we can locate any charred remains. It was after a demo for one of the local FD's that they came up with the idea and wanted to know if we could train a few dogs in this capacity for local and perhaps regional use. Typically we focus on locating suicides, finding more pieces of the disarticulated John Doe and bear maulings so this will give us something a little different to work towards.


----------



## Nancy Jocoy (Apr 19, 2006)

Cremains are surprisingly easy and house fires don't typically reduce bone as much as a crematorium does. It does do a lot of other things though. I took Rebmann's class a few years ago and we did it in a buidling the fire department used for burns. Buried the darned stuff in about 6 inches of ash (along with blank containers) and I'll be darned, even the beginning dogs found it. I keep them in a jar in my "dry bone box" so they don't get cross contaminated with tissue and fluid scents. Also, the flesh may not entirely burn so that is another odor.

We have not been called for that though, thre predominant land cadaver call seems to be when new information is obtained from a someone about a cold case........or a hunter finds a body or human bones and they want to locate the rest. 

That reminds me, I had a friend who was going to put some of my bones from the bone room in a house the fire department was going to burn so we could work it.............


----------



## Bob Scott (Mar 30, 2006)

The team I was on was predominantly FD. The original dog was trained in Quantico, so that gave us an "in" with the Feds. Most of the small towns/townships we worked would call the HP in the event of a big scene or lost person HP then contacted us.
I've done a couple of burned houses. All the water can do a few tricky things with scent. It will pool a lot in the lowest levels and can be confusing if you don't understand it.
I've know some handlers to keep "training material" in a container with burned wood. 
I no longer do SAR work.


----------



## Carol Boche (May 13, 2007)

I am going to bump this just once. I find the discussion that followed my question interesting but I am really looking for some more outlooks on how LE views SAR and what, if anything has happened to make you change your outlook on SAR K9 teams whether it be positive or negative.

The reason I ask is because this is a great forum and I like the honesty of the members. It serves as a learning process for all of us to get feedback. If you would rather send it in a PM that is okay too. 

Thanks All.


----------



## Bob Scott (Mar 30, 2006)

A lot of LE isn't educated on SAR. That creates a problem when the many "wannabee" teams just show up for a search. 
The Sandy Anderson BS didn't help matters either. 
I left SAR for a lot of reasons. The main one being that the folks running the team didn't actually train there own dogs. When those dogs pass on, "the leaders" still ran things with a "I know everything" attitude. 
Unfortunately, their reputation was built on dogs they didn't train. I went on more then one search where I questiond things that happend, or should have happened. When I kept getting "because I said so" answers I started loosing faith.
Many of the newbys that came on the team started comming to me for questions. That didn't sit well with "the leaders". 
The standards were also manipulated to fit the whims of "the leaders".
I suggested having outside organizations do the evals on our dogs and handlers. Didn't go over well at all.
The final straw was them telling me I had to neuter my dog "because "male dogs can't be controlled reliably off leash" and "We don't want him to get cancer".  I could go on forever! 
I might add that my "uncut Male" was the most undercontrol dog on the team. The "leaders" aproached me some time after I left and asked if I could help them correct a couple of off lead problems. I was to busy! :evil: :grin:
Sorry to bitch! This has never sat well with me. I truely believed that I could do some good.


----------



## Carol Boche (May 13, 2007)

I do not think your bitching at all, in fact, I agree with you as that is what has happened in this state in the past. 
It is really difficult to be dedicated to something that you have to constantly prove that your serious in order to gain respect. 

I have done some work (successful) for the US Marshal, which truly helped me A LOT, that and the fact that I have worked hard to keep my dogs in condition and mission ready. 
My team mates are pretty much taken seriously as well in their counties. 

I watch all these people that come to training that do not have a clue and probably will never have a clue and it is frustrating. 

I remember going to a police workshop with a team member (not with the team any longer) and she looked around and was like "OHHHHH look at all the pretty Mailnois"............UGH, not to mention trying to pet the pretty Malis....needless to say, I had one officer say, "Do not bring her on a search in my county." And he was dead serious.


----------



## Patrick Cheatham (Apr 10, 2006)

Carol: 

I have had LEO's say that they like the fact that we can come in and hit the ground running.

We blend in well with their officers and handle ourselves professionally.

LEO don't like it when SAR personel speak to the capabilities of a police K9.
We both like the same type dogs its the training that makes them what they are.

Our team trains and consults LEO as often as possible.

And by all means team members should stay away from loaded questions. Often times when out on a search we are paired with officers who are not K9 handlers and have negative things to say about their department's dogs. I'm always supportive of the police K9's even if I haven't worked with the one in question. My favorite answer is every dog has good and bad days.


----------



## David Frost (Mar 29, 2006)

In opinion, the single biggest question in the mind of law enforcement is: who are these folks? Not so much a question of personal identity, but to what level do they train and the professionalism of their work. Law enforcement go through a school. While there may be several different academies they attend, they are all pretty standard on what they teach. Most law enforcement dog handler go to a school of some sort. Again, while they may be different schools, they still train to a written standard. There is an assumed level of proficiency and professionalism. With SAR units, that are outside the law enforcement umbrella I feel it really does boil down to.....who are these guys? The answer to that is pretty straight forward; show them who you are. Trust, like respect, is earned, never given.

DFrost


----------



## Nancy Jocoy (Apr 19, 2006)

Well said in a few words. I would rather have to work hard to earn trust than have folks out there who don't have a clue as they often detract resources from the true mission.

I do wish that LE did not have to feel the pressure of folks who just "show up" in front of family and the press and have to explain why they are not using them. I think often they get deployed because of the flak the department would have to face for not using them. I have seen a good bit of that and it is not a fair place to put LE who assume responsibility for the actions of an unknown resource with unknown training and unknown criminal background. It is also not fair to people who work diligently as it reflects badly on all.

I think an ideal world, there would be resources to fund (state wide) professional full time search and rescue K9 teams and cadaver teams adequate to meet the needs. But there are not, I assume because it is not a big enough need.

Like most here, we never just show up on a scene, even when it is an "all y'all come" search, and we never never never go to the press or the family to offer services.


----------



## David Frost (Mar 29, 2006)

Nancy said: "I do wish that LE did not have to feel the pressure of folks who just "show up" in front of family and the press and have to explain why they are not using them. I think often they get deployed because of the flak the department would have to face for not using them."

You make a very valid point. With a crime scene, control is much easier. We just exclude anyone we don't want in the scene. With a SAR mission, there is a lot of pressure on law enforcement to use any available assistance. While that does sound like the logical approach, law enforcement is between a rock and a hard place. They are also ultimately responsible, particularly if things DON'T go well. It's not uncommon to have the comments of: why don't you use and why did you use made during the same search. 

DFrost


----------



## sharon E. Sansom (Feb 23, 2008)

We have worked very hard to teach our local LE what we are and are not capable of doing. Slowly the idea that local SAR is not the "Good old boy" teams they once were round here. We still have a long way to go but we use demo's and a DVD made that shows and explains what our dogs do. The typical reaction is "Wow, I never knew you guys train so much, your dogs really do know what they are doing" It helps that our Unit Commander is retired LE and was a LE k9 handler so he knows how to communicate effectively with them. All of our SAR k9 handlers are in the professional workforce and carry ourselves appropriately. I am not saying that to be obnoxious but I have run into other units (not usually K9 units but other land and boat commands) that seem more like they are out to have a good time with their buddies than to complete the mission. They are far fewer than even when I first started but they are still there and I don't blame LE for being cautious when we show up, unsure what they are getting. I do think that things are changing for the better slowly.


----------

