# Drug dogs wrong more often than right



## Ben Colbert

http://www.chicagobreakingnews.com/...iffing-dogs-in-traffic-stops-often-wrong.html

Thoughts?

Does this match up with your own experiences?


----------



## David Frost

Ben Colbert said:


> http://www.chicagobreakingnews.com/...iffing-dogs-in-traffic-stops-often-wrong.html
> 
> Thoughts?
> 
> Does this match up with your own experiences?


No, it does not. The last dog record I did for court was 92%. The average of our drug dogs, in actual situations, is around 82%. I can't speak for other programs as I have no control over them. The percentage is derived by doing the "goesintas" on number of responses v. the number of finds. A find is defined as "physical evidence". Suspect comments are entered in a remarks section but are NOT considered physical evidence. For example, if a dog was used to "sniff" 100 vehicles, responded on 10 and physical evidence of drugs was found in 9 of the vehicles, the result would be 90%. It's not rocket science. In my opinion, the total number of vehicles contacted is an important part of the equation. The totality of circumstances is what demonstrates true proficiency. I've said many times, departments that do not have good training practices, solid documentation and pay attention to detail are only setting all of us up for bad case law. 

DFrost


----------



## Jim Nash

I have very similar experiances as Dave when it comes to percentages . I'd like to see how the math was done on all this . The report itself seems to lump searches where no alert was given and no drugs were found into being a false alert . 

I think the report is having a big problem with terminology here , it is for sure very unclear when they are talking about traffic stops where a K9 did a stop , had no alert and no drugs were found and when they are talking about a stop where a K9 did a sniff , alerted and no drugs were found .

In my experiance , 14 years of K9 work with 2 Patrol K9s cross trained in Narcotics dtection , a detection dog trainer and judge in USPCA detector certifications , an alert where drugs aren't found is a very rare occurance . 

Horribly written article and very unclear . I hope those agencies involved in the article get a chance to see how this was determined and possibly get a chance to correct possible errors the writer made .

I've said it before and will say it again , the media isn't obligated or does it work at being accurate . Often times when errors are made and pointed out rarely do they address it and make a retraction . The common response is " Oh well " and they move on . They are more concerned with a "good story " and less concerned with it being accurate or truthful .


----------



## Kevin Walsh

Don't blame the dogs:

... many dog-and-officer teams are poorly trained and prone to false alerts that lead to unjustified searches...
"If you don't train, you can't be confident in your dog," said Alex Rothacker, a trainer who works with dozens of local drug-sniffing dogs. "A lot of dogs don't train. A lot of dogs aren't good."

The dog teams are not held to any statutory standard of performance in Illinois or most other states, experts and dog handlers said, though private groups offer certification for the canines.


----------



## David Frost

Kevin Walsh said:


> Don't blame the dogs:
> 
> ... many dog-and-officer teams are poorly trained and prone to false alerts that lead to unjustified searches...
> "If you don't train, you can't be confident in your dog," said Alex Rothacker, a trainer who works with dozens of local drug-sniffing dogs. "A lot of dogs don't train. A lot of dogs aren't good."
> 
> The dog teams are not held to any statutory standard of performance in Illinois or most other states, experts and dog handlers said, though private groups offer certification for the canines.



You make two points I like to comment on. 

1. it would be interesting to know if the "trainer who works with dozens of local drug-sniffing dogs" is doing so as a business? I've never made light of my belief that many vendors trash police training because it can possibly increase their business. I even know some law enforcement officers that do the same thing. AND they train other departments, for a fee of course. 

2. You make an excellant point about dog teams not being held to a statutory standard of performance. All departments that utilize dogs, need to have a written standard of performance, the same as they do on police officers. Call it POST or whatever you care to name it, but it does need to exist. Even if it is strictly a department policy. If it isn't written, it isn't a standard. Even departments that utilize the different certification agencies should have a written department standard. 

DFrost


----------



## Lamar Blackmor

They probably has 2 differen dog for each deparment. If the pull over a black guy or latin guy they call for dog who make false alerts all time so they can harraz these guy. IF it a white guy they fet the real dog to give he a chance.


----------



## Dwyras Brown

Lamar, I know a couple of handler's who have more experience at being black than you. They would take offense to your statement.


----------



## scott zimmerman

Wow! What a misleading article. Not sure what the real topic was about. By the title, it sounds like it will be about K9 team performance, but then the authors quickly pull the race card out. To me, it was more accusations that Hispanics being are targeted by corrupt cops and handlers. Like David, I can't speak for any of their programs or protocols, but it sounds like a trainer that has an axe to grind with some agencies that do not use his services anymore. Not to say they aren't messed up, but his comment that the handlers are lazy from surrounding agencies and that they do not show up for weekly trainings that he offers. According to his website, his basic handler school is almost $12,000! Who knows what he charges for those weekly sessions. Although lack of funding is no excuse for not training, there are always solutions. We get together with multiple jurisdictions from federal to state (from two states), local departments, and the military where we live. Also, the handler states per his site once a team completes his 37 hour tracking school: "..., they will- 

*be competent to track on gravel, asphalt, concrete, dirt, grass and through woods. *
know the various sequences of events relative to air currents, terrain, ground disturbance and human body scent when tracking a human subject.
know how to keep the canine interested in the task of tracking.
know how to re-direct the canine if the scent or canine interest is lost.
know how to recognize that the canine is indicating on an article on the track (down position) and the canine body language which indicates the subject has been located.
know how and when to use the various length leads for a track depending on the type of area.
This guy must be amazing b/c I don't know of a tracking dog trainer that can complete this feat! Also, his certifications are good for two years? I know most organizations are one year (David, any input on industry norm? One year, right?). Not trying to slam this guy, b/c he is right in that there are lazy handlers out there that shouldn't be cops not to mention handlers, but he seems to portray that as the norm versus the exception. As Nash pointed out, I too would like to see the math on this one and feel it is a terminology problem. Although they point out the issue with residual odor, I don't think it was figured into the math figures they were provided. I often times get a residual hit with enough to test. Does that mean I am going to contact a Narc to come out and charge him on a case that isn't worth the court's time? No. Are they getting their figures from "cases made" or just actual drugs and pipes, syringes, etc. found? Often times I get dope as a result from an alert that never makes it to court b/c the suspect rolls someone else for the Narc. No case made.  In defense of the authors, I understand trash in = trash out, but like Nash points out, I don't think the reporters did adequate research into terminology, math, and how the figures are reported. Sounds like the read just enough to get their "angle". I will say, if those departments are targeting Hispanics, they are missing a crapload of dope in doing so!!! Like Nash and Frost, our department figures are nothing close to those reported.


----------



## scott zimmerman

Lamar Blackmor said:


> They probably has 2 differen dog for each deparment. If the pull over a black guy or latin guy they call for dog who make false alerts all time so they can harraz these guy. IF it a white guy they fet the real dog to give he a chance.


WOW! And another conspiracy theorist emerges from the ranks!


----------



## Bob Scott

Lamar Blackmor said:


> They probably has 2 differen dog for each deparment. If the pull over a black guy or latin guy they call for dog who make false alerts all time so they can harraz these guy. IF it a white guy they fet the real dog to give he a chance.




I've gone throught a couple of pages of your bs trolling and nothing was beneficial to the post not to mention your weak attempts at ethnic phrase and usage suck!
I seem to send you a PM every time you come on. Get over the BS!

Bob Scott
WDF Moderator


----------



## Joby Becker

I am about 10 minutes from TOPS....

I was in there applying for a job with a friend, ON A FRIDAY while we were waiting I went in and watched the in-kennel OB class...all prong, which is understandable for the time alloted for training, not bagging on them for that...

I went back in the office and and sat down...A lady came in to pick up her dog...the girl behind the counter said:

Hi, how can I help you...
_I am here to pick up my dog, the name is -----, I dropped her off last friday for boarding and training..._
(lady looks up file, goes in back, comes back out...)
It will just be a minute, you dog is just coming back from OB session...
_OK_
Ok, Ms.---the fees for boarding and training are $945.00, plus tax.. and your dog is trained on a prong collar, we can sell you one here for $30.00....
_Ok, sure, I'll just get it here..._
(lady gets prong collar from back, not even a Herm Sprenger, just regular old pronger, very small, lady whips out her check book and writes a check)
OB trainer brings her dog back in (a small breed dog, maybe 20 lbs tops), and tells her when she is done to come out to the training room so she can show her how to handle the dog with the prong collar and its new training)

I did not get the total of the bill, I missed that part but it was most likely over $1050.00 for one week of boarding and on-leash, pinch collar training of a small breed dog....

I was training a PP dog for a girl, the dog was super defensive and got the heavy end of the stick in training for more than a year before she came to me, the dog would certainly mess someone up that tried anything with her, but she also got interested in competing in PP Events, her dog used very little prey, was hectic, chewy, and was trying to kill a person in a suit, very dirty, would do 1 send, give it 110% and basically give up if he didn't think he was killing you, the more you fought him, the tougher he was, but he was not in a good spot for longer sessions, and his outs were very dirty...

I worked with the dog for about a year, took him back to the tug, got him to trust me some, was able to work him for 30-40 minutes in a variety of things...but throughout that year, I could always tell when she went to TOPS...the dog backslid majorly..and took a month to get him back...at first she tried to tell me that she was only going there for OB, then finally she admitted she was working bitework with Alex's brother in law, Luis..every so often...

In all fairness, I doubt she explained that her dog was a special case on a special program...

I know lots of people in the area that know TOPS and Alex well...they pretty much have a lock on this whole area for police dogs. I do know Alex is an excellent trainer and have not heard anything bad about his training...
I have been out there a few times...but do not know them well...my SCH decoy used to breed GSD and has sold them a few dogs..someone who is a member here used to work there...

I do know that Alex joined some group, (maybe even started it) out here that was trying to standardize all dog training in IL, lobbying for it.a few years back...which would force all trainers to go through a standardized course, and would force people to certify their dogs by taking them to at least 3 trainers in the "group"..it was a scam for sure, glad it did not pass...

It is pretty disappointing to read this article, but not surprising, as someone said...big money is changing hands....if it costs 1000 dollars to board and train a 20 lb dog for a week, I can't imagine what some of the other services cost...I was surprised to find out the bitework for protection was only $25 a session I think, but that was not with Alex...still suprised that I could get 40 sessions of bitework for the price of a week of training fluffy....but fluffie's owner wrote that check with a smile on her face..


----------



## julie allen

One of the dogs in our training group has learned to hit on absolutely nothing lol. Its funny to watch him just sit in front of any locker or fender panel to see if he gets his ball. He is not being worked on the street, and not sure where his narc training began.


----------



## David Frost

A friend and I discussed this at length, last night on the telephone. She had called because of a similar problem with a dog. Small town, no training staff, no real policies or procedures to guide the day-to-day operations of K9. The depth of experience within the department was the result of a two week school when they purchased the dog. More often than not, this type of situation is bad case law waiting to happen. Now the department want's to add patrol dogs as well. Another local department wants to drop out of one more recognized certification agencies. Why? Because they find the certification too difficult. I have always been a proponent of a standardized certification program. I think it should be state level, not federal (it's a Southern thing) tied into POST. The certification organizations are opposed to that, unless of course, they become the POST recognized agency. Similar to what ATF is trying to do with the ORT. At any rate, to me it's more of a problem than having lazy officers, or officers looking for a shortcut. Those can be weeded out of a program that is being operated properly. The concern is more of; they just don't know any better. It may be tough to say, but I am of the firm belief that if a department doesn't have the means, both professionally and financially, to fully support a canine unit, they shouldn't have one. 

DFrost


----------



## Loring Cox

David Frost said:


> No, it does not. The last dog record I did for court was 92%. The average of our drug dogs, in actual situations, is around 82%. I can't speak for other programs as I have no control over them. The percentage is derived by doing the "goesintas" on number of responses v. the number of finds. A find is defined as "physical evidence". Suspect comments are entered in a remarks section but are NOT considered physical evidence. For example, if a dog was used to "sniff" 100 vehicles, responded on 10 and physical evidence of drugs was found in 9 of the vehicles, the result would be 90%. It's not rocket science. In my opinion, the total number of vehicles contacted is an important part of the equation. The totality of circumstances is what demonstrates true proficiency. I've said many times, departments that do not have good training practices, solid documentation and pay attention to detail are only setting all of us up for bad case law.
> 
> DFrost


Dave, I went to a seminar where the legal guru says your numbers would give a 99% accuracy ratio.

His reasoning was the dog correctly indicated 90 times that there were no narcotic odor, correctly indicated 9 times the presence of narcotic odor, and one false indication of narcotic odor...

Thoughts?


----------



## David Frost

Loring Cox said:


> Dave, I went to a seminar where the legal guru says your numbers would give a 99% accuracy ratio.
> 
> His reasoning was the dog correctly indicated 90 times that there were no narcotic odor, correctly indicated 9 times the presence of narcotic odor, and one false indication of narcotic odor...
> 
> Thoughts?


My thought is, it's smoke and mirrors. My experience with jurors is; KISS. I include the total number vehicles (for example) the dog has sniffed, to show the dog does not indicriminately respond to vehicles. The percentage, as indicated earlier, is based on number of finds v. number of responses. In addition, I don't count "head turns", "intensive sniffing", "more focused sniffing" and the other behaviors some count as a response. The final response is what matters, all the other nonsense is nothing more than "changes of behavior". 

DFrost


----------



## Loring Cox

David Frost said:


> My thought is, it's smoke and mirrors. My experience with jurors is; KISS. I include the total number vehicles (for example) the dog has sniffed, to show the dog does not indicriminately respond to vehicles. The percentage, as indicated earlier, is based on number of finds v. number of responses. In addition, I don't count "head turns", "intensive sniffing", "more focused sniffing" and the other behaviors some count as a response. The final response is what matters, all the other nonsense is nothing more than "changes of behavior".
> 
> DFrost


Sounds good to me.


----------



## Jim Nash

David Frost said:


> My thought is, it's smoke and mirrors. My experience with jurors is; KISS. I include the total number vehicles (for example) the dog has sniffed, to show the dog does not indicriminately respond to vehicles. The percentage, as indicated earlier, is based on number of finds v. number of responses.
> 
> DFrost


David , that stuff makes way too much sence . It sure doesn't look that's how it was done in the article .


----------



## Loring Cox

Jim Nash said:


> David , that stuff makes way too much sence . It sure doesn't look that's how it was done in the article .


That's the thing, you can make numbers say anything you want... It looks like they took the actual number of sniffs and looked at how often drugs are actually located. No wonder the number is so low.


----------



## David Frost

Jim Nash said:


> David , that stuff makes way too much sence . It sure doesn't look that's how it was done in the article .


I know, and it irks me that people try to make it more difficult. I'm not trying to be a smart ass when I say; this isn't rocket science. ha ha.

DFrost


----------



## Jim Nash

Loring Cox said:


> That's the thing, you can make numbers say anything you want... It looks like they took the actual number of sniffs and looked at how often drugs are actually located. No wonder the number is so low.


Yep that's what it looks like to me too. Just another example of how the news makes something out of nothing .


----------



## Jim Nash

David Frost said:


> I know, and it irks me that people try to make it more difficult. I'm not trying to be a smart ass when I say; this isn't rocket science. ha ha.
> 
> DFrost


I agree . BUT if it was actually made clear in this article and done the way you and I do it there probably wouldn't be an article to begin with . But by making it complicated and as clear as mud they have been able to make their own news . 

It's like argueing with my ex wife , how do you refute anything if you don't even know what they are talking about to begin with .


----------



## David Frost

Jim Nash said:


> I agree . BUT if it was actually made clear in this article and done the way you and I do it there probably wouldn't be an article to begin with . But by making it complicated and as clear as mud they have been able to make their own news .
> 
> It's like argueing with my ex wife , how do you refute anything if you don't even know what they are talking about to begin with .


Good point and a good laugh, ha ha

DFrost


----------



## Guest

Piss Poor Article, has nothing to do with the dog, everything to do with training and an attempt to spin the article into racial waters.....waste of time reading it and pisses me off, due to the fact that some people who have no clue will actually beleive the entire artcle, thus tarnishing the dog programs that train hard day in and day out and save lives and take people of the street!!


----------



## Thomas Barriano

Loring Cox said:


> That's the thing, you can make numbers say anything you want... It looks like they took the actual number of sniffs and looked at how often drugs are actually located. No wonder the number is so low.


That reminds me of the old saying
"There are three kinds of lies. 
Lies, damn lies and STATISTICS"


----------



## Tatiana Jacques

It doesn't sound like this was a controlled scientific experiment. Like others have mentioned it depends on the quality of training and the knowledge of the officer. The dog is only as good as the human being him/her.


----------



## Gregory S. Norton

Ben Colbert said:


> http://www.chicagobreakingnews.com/...iffing-dogs-in-traffic-stops-often-wrong.html
> 
> Thoughts?
> 
> Does this match up with your own experiences?


Number 1,anything that comes out of Chicago should be looked on with great suspicion.
Number 2,I believe that percentage does not include the the times where the dog indicated but 
no drugs were found.The average Joe fails to understand that just because the dog indicated
and no drugs were found,only means they were not present at the time of indication !
Not sure if we could do a swab test of the area indicated but if its possible,it would back up and increase percentages.


----------



## Christopher Smith

gregory s. Norton said:


> the average joe fails to understand that just because the dog indicated
> and no drugs were found,only means they were not present at the time of indication !


or that the dog was *wrong*.


----------



## Jamey Jordan

dogs are trained to alert on the odor of narcotics no the actual substance. whos to say drugs werent in the car before the stop and odor was still present ? although they are some lazy handlers that dont train properly, the article should have been more clear and not bashing the dogs when they dont know what they are talking about


----------



## kim guidry

Sounds good to me Jamey.


----------



## Jim Nash

This report does not specify how they came about their conclusions . From the looks of it they included every time the dog searched and didn't even alert to anything .That's the only way I could see those numbers being the way they are . Forget about the dog alerting to residual odor that's only a small part of this issue . The biggest issue is how unclear this report is .


----------

