# So what happens to the Dogs in Co and Wa now?



## Ted Summers (May 14, 2012)

with the passage of the laws in Washington allowing recreational use of marijuana what happens to LE dogs now in those states?


----------



## David Frost (Mar 29, 2006)

Good question. I'm kind of anxious to see the answer to that question myself. 

DFrost


----------



## Ted Summers (May 14, 2012)

Most LE agencies don't have a ton of money and probably can't afford to buy another dog. I'd imagine you could retire the guys that are close to the end of their carriers and they can chase squirrels in the back yard but what about 3-5 year old dogs?

I'd imagine you could 'sell' a dog to an agency in another state to recover some cost but you still have to replace it. Should be interesting.....


----------



## rick smith (Dec 31, 2010)

hopefully it will give em LOTS more time to find more dangerous drugs 
...i expect they will be manufactured in even higher quantities now to maintain cash flow :-(
...until the feds step in and crash the party //lol//

whenever i hear "war on drugs" pot rarely comes to mind anymore


----------



## Ted Summers (May 14, 2012)

From a legal perspective the dogs are almost useless to LE now. If a dog alerts and the officer finds pot and something else illegal (coke, meth etc) how do you determine what the alert was for? I'd think it'd be a nightmare for prosecutors.


----------



## Lee H Sternberg (Jan 27, 2008)

They all have the munchies and giggles!\\/


----------



## Brett Bowen (May 2, 2011)

Ted Summers said:


> From a legal perspective the dogs are almost useless to LE now.


Not true. Until some crazy ruling comes down from the supreme court, they are still useful. Even then, they will have their uses. 

I am curious about what they do now with all the dogs trained to hit on marijuana. Do they go through an "untrain" it? Or do they have some measure for some allowances the next few years until those dogs are retired? I imagine some case law (or an attorney general's opinion) will be working it's way through the system shortly.


----------



## Thomas Barriano (Mar 27, 2006)

How many drug dogs are trained to only indicate Pot?
I think the change in the Pot laws in Colorado will have minimal effect on the rest of the illegal drug war. Much ado about nothing.
If anything it will give the police time to focus on the really dangerous stuff


----------



## Lee H Sternberg (Jan 27, 2008)

Thomas Barriano said:


> How many drug dogs are trained to only indicate Pot?
> I think the change in the Pot laws in Colorado will have minimal effect on the rest of the illegal drug war. Much ado about nothing.
> If anything it will give the police time to focus on the really dangerous stuff


I'm not sure they really cared much about grass anyway.


----------



## Chuck Zang (May 12, 2010)

I think that if the state allows "medicinal use", then the stuff is still a "controlled" substance and the burden of proof for lawful possession is on the individual- ie, a valid card, or prescription. If the state has legalized the possession then there is a problem for LE ( or at least dogs that have been trained to find the odor of marijuana) because now you have a dog that is alerting to the odor of a substance that is legal to possess. As mentioned, you could try to proof them off, or "untrain", but the issue will likely always be there, especially for the defense. IMHO, but as someone said, there will be AG opinions and case law coming down, so I may be very wrong.



Sent from my MB860 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Brian Reynolds (May 27, 2012)

Disagree. The CO state law prescribes a limited amount to possess and does not supersede Federal law. I would think there is no problem with dogs detecting, and estblishing PC for whatever is found, and then it is up to the DA or United States Attorney to decide to prosecute.


----------



## Carol Boche (May 13, 2007)

I was under the impression that its a broad spectrum thing...but I am on a learning curve right now too with all the LEO K9 stuff. If you do a search of a vehicle, your dog is looking for drugs and not something specific, so, it won't matter if you find weed because if it is legal and depending what the laws are, you don't have to make an arrest, write a ticket or whatever. I think it will cause K9 officers to do more thorough searches (ie: dog indicates, weed found= don't stop there, keep looking) because people are gonna get smart. (Need to transport a pound of meth so they keep weed in the rig to try and pass that off so the meth is not located). 
I will probably get ripped apart since I am learning and this is not my strongest suit yet. 

I think there are a TON of bugs to be worked our yet before anyone can say the dogs are useless.


----------



## Ted Summers (May 14, 2012)

A criminal attorney friend of mine in Denver that's also a Schuntzhund guy said it'll be a 'nightmare' for LE. He makes a valid point that a dog alerting on MJ is going to be a problem for a few reasons. The first is that it's now an unreasonable search and the alert on MJ doesn't rise to the level of suspicion needed to initiate a search of a car or person. It is after all a legal substance now just like booze and tobacco. Having a pack of cigarettes doesn't give ground for a search. As far as I know, it's not controlled in the sense that you need an RX to get it. It'll be regulated and taxed like tobacco and booze. 2nd, there is the 'fruit of the poison tree argument.' A dog alerts on MJ and another substance. There wasn't a reason to initiate a search and the officer finds both substances. A defense attorney would have a field day with that and simply say "the dog alerted on the MJ and the other substance was found subsequent to that. Wrongful search... dismiss." The DA can argue that the dog smelled both and we all know it did but he'll have to have some way of proving it. It'd real easy to simple say "my dog CAN NOT detect MJ."


----------



## Chuck Zang (May 12, 2010)

Ted, thanks that was what I was thinking and trying to say, you were much more clear. 

Sent from my MB860 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Thomas Barriano (Mar 27, 2006)

Ted

J.S is the only lawyer I know about, doing Schutzhund at any of the Denver clubs. Last I heard he was switching to Dog Law cases?


----------



## Daryl Ehret (Apr 4, 2006)

Suppose the dogs can be used in the private sector, to help them find where they've misplaced their pot.


----------



## ann schnerre (Aug 24, 2006)

Daryl Ehret said:


> Suppose the dogs can be used in the private sector, to help them find where they've misplaced their pot.



for 40,000 US =D>:-\":-\"


----------



## Lee H Sternberg (Jan 27, 2008)

I ran to the store yesterday, Thanksgiving Day. There were a bunch of young guys who apparently just finished up with a Thanksgiving football game before heading home for the meal.

They were sitting around a picnic bench at the park passing around a joint. A cop drove by and looked right at them passing it.

I know he saw them. He just continued on by. 

The new law in Colorado say you can't do it in public but the cop apparently didn't care.

Gotta love it!:grin:


----------



## Geoff Empey (Jan 8, 2008)

What about laws for public intoxication and DUI laws? Driving a motor vehicle impaired whether it be prescription narcotics, booze or weed is all the same, yes/no?


----------



## Dee Harrison (Apr 16, 2009)

I haven't read the new statute, but, I would imagine that 'recreational use' would only be a certain amount of marijuana that is legal. Recreational use would not include 'possession with intent to distribute' or posession of a certain amount of plants or sale of a controlled substance. Bottom line, I think, is 'amounts'.


----------



## Lee H Sternberg (Jan 27, 2008)

Dee Harrison said:


> I haven't read the new statute, but, I would imagine that 'recreational use' would only be a certain amount of marijuana that is legal. Recreational use would not include 'possession with intent to distribute' or posession of a certain amount of plants or sale of a controlled substance. Bottom line, I think, is 'amounts'.



In Colorado it's a OZ. and you can grow 3 plants.


----------



## Lee H Sternberg (Jan 27, 2008)

Geoff Empey said:


> What about laws for public intoxication and DUI laws? Driving a motor vehicle impaired whether it be prescription narcotics, booze or weed is all the same, yes/no?



Yes


----------



## Dee Harrison (Apr 16, 2009)

Lee H Sternberg said:


> In Colorado it's a OZ. and you can grow 3 plants.


 
Then I would think that anything over those amounts would be fair game for law enforcement to target and the dogs would still be necessary.


----------



## Lee H Sternberg (Jan 27, 2008)

I wonder how much neighborhood theft will go on when people have nice ripe "grass" plants ready for harvest in their back yards.:-D

I wonder if their will be great, big marijuana plant contests all the county fairs in Colorado soon.:-D


----------



## Thomas Barriano (Mar 27, 2006)

Lee,

I know a guy that has a commercial grow facility. Growing the kind of Pot available now is highly technical. A lot more then a couple of grow lights in the back bedroom


----------



## Lee H Sternberg (Jan 27, 2008)

Thomas Barriano said:


> Lee,
> 
> I know a guy that has a commercial grow facility. Growing the kind of Pot available now is highly technical. A lot more then a couple of grow lights in the back bedroom


I grew it once when I was in my 20's in Calif. I had a tough time telling the male and female plants apart but other than that the pot came strong and great outside in the backyard. I don't remember anymore but after germination you rip out one type of plants. I think the female is the ones you keep.


----------



## Thomas Barriano (Mar 27, 2006)

It's a science now. They control everything from the wavelength of the light the plants are exposed, to the percentage of nitrogen in the soil etc. etc. etc.


----------



## Lee H Sternberg (Jan 27, 2008)

Thomas Barriano said:


> It's a science now. They control everything from the wavelength of the light the plants are exposed, to the percentage of nitrogen in the soil etc. etc. etc.


I understand Thomas. The growers go for maximum strength and size. There are still going to be many, many people that grow there own to save the bucks or just want to "green thumb" it. After all it is a weed!:-D


----------



## Thomas Barriano (Mar 27, 2006)

Lee,

I hear you about saving $$$
I remember buying primo weed for $25 a kilo. Of course gas was $.35/a gallon and you could buy a carton of smokes duty free at the Airport in Newfoundland for $1.50 a carton 
One of the main reasons I never got a prescription for the back pain is cost. Vicodin is covered, marijuana isn't


----------



## Thomas Barriano (Mar 27, 2006)

Fix you sigline
It's Omar Bradley not Bradkey ;-)


----------



## Lee H Sternberg (Jan 27, 2008)

Thomas Barriano said:


> Lee,
> 
> I hear you about saving $$$
> I remember buying primo weed for $25 a kilo. Of course gas was $.35/a gallon and you could buy a carton of smokes duty free at the Airport in Newfoundland for $1.50 a carton
> One of the main reasons I never got a prescription for the back pain is cost. Vicodin is covered, marijuana isn't


Because you live in Colorado you can now do both. You can grow some weed and take Vicodin. You'll be doing acrobatics in no time.:-D


----------



## Lee H Sternberg (Jan 27, 2008)

Thomas Barriano said:


> Fix you sigline
> It's Omar Bradley not Bradkey ;-)


I know about that, Thomas. It was my typo. A few people have mentioned it. I keep forgetting to fix it.


----------



## Lee H Sternberg (Jan 27, 2008)

Thomas Barriano said:


> Fix you sigline
> It's Omar Bradley not Bradkey ;-)


There I changed it.


----------



## maggie fraser (May 30, 2008)

I still think of myself as I was 25 years ago. Then I look in the mirror and see a old bastard and realize it's me. David Allen 

It's DAVE Allen :roll:


----------



## Lee H Sternberg (Jan 27, 2008)

maggie fraser said:


> i still think of myself as i was 25 years ago. Then i look in the mirror and see a old bastard and realize it's me. David allen
> 
> it's dave allen :roll:


i ain't changing it!:-d


----------



## Rachael Lincoln (Jun 18, 2012)

I would assume that since most scent dogs are trained on 3 scents that they will continue to work. There is also a limit of how much pot a person can have, we work hard to train dogs to alert on the smallest of scent for most LE, they can also find large quantities. I'm sure it will just be a change in work is all.


----------



## Thomas Barriano (Mar 27, 2006)

Hi Rachel

It's actually harder for some dogs to find tons of pot then it is just seeds. Some dogs get overwhelmed by massive amounts of scent.


----------



## Dave Colborn (Mar 25, 2009)

Ted Summers said:


> A criminal attorney friend of mine in Denver that's also a Schuntzhund guy said it'll be a 'nightmare' for LE. He makes a valid point that a dog alerting on MJ is going to be a problem for a few reasons. The first is that it's now an unreasonable search and the alert on MJ doesn't rise to the level of suspicion needed to initiate a search of a car or person. It is after all a legal substance now just like booze and tobacco. Having a pack of cigarettes doesn't give ground for a search. As far as I know, it's not controlled in the sense that you need an RX to get it. It'll be regulated and taxed like tobacco and booze. 2nd, there is the 'fruit of the poison tree argument.' A dog alerts on MJ and another substance. There wasn't a reason to initiate a search and the officer finds both substances. A defense attorney would have a field day with that and simply say "the dog alerted on the MJ and the other substance was found subsequent to that. Wrongful search... dismiss." The DA can argue that the dog smelled both and we all know it did but he'll have to have some way of proving it. It'd real easy to simple say "my dog CAN NOT detect MJ."


I trained a dog for an Oregon department a couple years ago. Didn't train it on MJ. I think a lot of guys out that way knew what was coming, and probably just didn't train MJ for the last couple years in new dogs. That would put departments ahead of others, retiring older dogs that won't work for Probable Cause reasons anymore, leaving the non-MJ younger dogs. 

I wonder if you had four dogs, 3 traditional drug dogs, and 1 non-MJ trained dog. Have the non-MJ trained dog confirm responses of the other three? That would weed out the MJ responses.


----------



## Thomas Barriano (Mar 27, 2006)

Dave Colborn said:


> That would weed out the MJ responses.


"Weed out the MJ responses" really weed out?


----------



## Dave Colborn (Mar 25, 2009)

Thomas Barriano said:


> "Weed out the MJ responses" really weed out?


 
Good eye Thomas. I didn't even intend that...


----------

