# How much is too much



## Misty Wegner (May 22, 2015)

So I had a discussion with some fellow SAR teammates about logs. I tend to be very detailed (location, subject, type of training (trail, air, HRD, etc), weather time laid and time run, distance laid and distance run, aged, hit, known, blind, double blind, technical etc) and then a summation of what the given dog did during the training and key aspects that might have influenced or caused a said reaction from dog, or decision from me... 

I do this because I reread my logs and like to see the growth and learning in my dogs and how I read them.. I do realize that my logs could be called into question if I was brought into court.. The chances of that as a trailing dog handler whom LE does not call out on known criminal cases (of course a 'lost' subject could turn out to be a kidnapped victim) is very low. Should my dogs get certified in cadaver work, well then a higher likelihood of court is possible.. 

Anyhow, I was told by these teammates that it was unwise to be detailed. Ironically, I was complimented by the SAR LE deputy in charge on my detail, lol, sooooo, the question is how much is too much? And what should or shouldn't be in the logs?


----------



## Nicole Stark (Jul 22, 2009)

Unwise is the word they used. What was the reason given? Court?

Truth is, over time you will likely not take the kind of notes that you do today.


----------



## Misty Wegner (May 22, 2015)

Well over 600 trails later I still take pretty detailed notes, so, unless a really good reason is given for not doing it.... The reason they gave was for defense lawyers using them against you..


----------



## Nicole Stark (Jul 22, 2009)

And their experience (not fear) tells you this? Let's say they use your notes in court, is there specific level of detail that they are concerned about that presents a problem? Seems like the less people know the more there is to be left up to interpretation. 

I mean come on haven't you seen 'My Cousin Vinny'?  What made the case? A level of detail that only an expert would know. Alright, maybe not an expert, but most people wouldn't have known about or picked up on the positraction burn out or even if they noticed it they probably wouldn't have made the connection.


----------



## Misty Wegner (May 22, 2015)

Well, again, I don't think for what I do or the chances of what I do the likelihood of my being called in as an expert witness, or whatever is likely.. That being said, they had taken a course where they were taught to be less detailed in their log books... The reasoning being that prosecution can use your experiences documented against you... 

It is a '[email protected]&*ed if you do [email protected]&*ed if you dont' scenario, because if you have a flawless record in your log book that is an obvious lie and you are untrustworthy.. If your dog has an issue on a given day during training, prosecution/defense might say 'well he had that trouble then what makes you say he is OK now?' blah blah blah... Obviously there are legit answers to the questions, all reasonable and we'll within working expectations, however, if you are in the hot seat and a fierce or crafty attorney is really drilling the questions it might not be an easy thing to express the legitimate response to the given questions... So I guess giving less, which is where my questions lie (how much is to much? Or to little) might help keep the hungry attorneys at bay... Not sure though which is why the questions are asked ... Loved that movie, lol!


----------



## Nicole Stark (Jul 22, 2009)

That kind of audience wouldn't bother me. I've dealt with corporate lawyers, CBP investigators, etc. The good thing about being honest is you never have to remember what you said or did some other time if ever asked about it. 

OK. I'm projecting here. There's people on this forum that can give you a straight / experience based answer. I was just curious about a few things.


----------



## Bob Scott (Mar 30, 2006)

I see no bad side to an honest, detailed log.

In the occasion something goes to court you can bet the other side, prosecution OR defense will have their own "expert" witness(s) to rip your testimony apart. 

If it's all in a detailed log your going to, at least show what you saw or did and your success and mistakes in training and actual searches. 

Lack a good log book or worse, have one that is a lot of BS and you'll get tore a new one. 

Log books should be reviewed on a regular basis by team leaders and the team together.


----------



## Nancy Jocoy (Apr 19, 2006)

What I was told about complexity was to be prepared to explain any of the parameters you track if you are in court. For example if you do track barometric pressure be sure to explain how it would impact buried sources and you could be sucked into a very convoluted discussion. 

My logs went from complex to somewhat simple because I weeded out info that really was not that helpful to my training and it was easier to fill out a simple log than one very complex. So I tend to have a few fields and a narrative section with comments on what to work on etc.


----------



## Nicole Stark (Jul 22, 2009)

Ah, this I understand. Context - very relevant.


----------



## Sarah Platts (Jan 12, 2010)

Misty,

I just sat through 10 hours on the stand for the suppression hearing and 4-5 hours of court on an old case. It can be a double edged sword. Every sar dog handler should have to experience it at some point (preferably early on) in their careers because it sharpens your perspective. A Lot. It gave me a new appreciation for..... well, a lot. Everything from court procedure to how to deal with defense attorneys and the way questions are asked and answered. 

That being said, if you want to send me a copy of one of your regular training records I will look at it and offer my opinion. 

I started out with detailed logs on weather and all that but pared it down over the years to weather data if it was pertinent to the trail. Sometimes the more detail you give an attorney, the more ammunition you hand them. On the flip side, it's easy to shut them up when you can show in the logs the history in a certain situation.


----------



## Sarah Platts (Jan 12, 2010)

Another handler and I were discussing training records. Their training logs consisted of nothing more then the sign in/out sheets of training attendance and their certification. That was it. The organization this handler belongs to does not specify what is in "training log" only that they have one.


----------



## Nicole Stark (Jul 22, 2009)

That does not sound acceptable (training logs like that). 

And I was going to ask last night about trying to get a chance to sit in on a trial like you mentioned. I think that would be an exceptional investment of time.


----------



## Bob Scott (Mar 30, 2006)

Nancy Jocoy said:


> What I was told about complexity was to be prepared to explain any of the parameters you track if you are in court. For example if you do track barometric pressure be sure to explain how it would impact buried sources and you could be sucked into a very convoluted discussion.
> 
> My logs went from complex to somewhat simple because I weeded out info that really was not that helpful to my training and it was easier to fill out a simple log than one very complex. So I tend to have a few fields and a narrative section with comments on what to work on etc.




I agree 100% that you should be able to explain anything in your logs otherwise your just writing fiction.


----------



## Misty Wegner (May 22, 2015)

Thank you Nancy, Sarah, Bob and Nicole... Pretty much what has been answered is what I expected.. Honesty and thoughtful reasoning for why what is logged is logged... I wasn't able to track why the reasoning of being so vague, especially for trail work... The less information can lead to more ammunition for the opposing team as much as frivolous information... But honest, well thought informative logs back up abilities and prove out what is being challenged..


----------



## Bob Scott (Mar 30, 2006)

ding, ding, ding! 

Give that lady a cigar! :grin: :wink:


----------



## Sarah Platts (Jan 12, 2010)

Speaking from experience, I have found that even if you have it in your logs the attorney will still question, attack, downplay, or pander you. The big thing is to be able to explain your logs, use them to document types of training and frequency, problems, corrections, or to show consistency. List any problems and then be sure to show how subsequent trainings corrected the problem or increased the performance of a behavior (like the indication or the refind), etc.

Also do not put your deployment records in with your training records. Any call-out or search reports need to be maintained in a binder separate from your training records. Do not mix the two together.


----------



## Misty Wegner (May 22, 2015)

Sarah said : Also do not put your deployment records in with your training records. Any call-out or search reports need to be maintained in a binder separate from your training records. Do not mix the two together.

This is important! I have a separate binder for deployment, however, I was also keeping my deployments with my training logs... What is the reasoning for separation? Just so I am clear... Sometimes you do things instinctively but don't know the why's and wherefore's etc


----------



## Sarah Platts (Jan 12, 2010)

If you keep them with your training records, as part of your training records, then when they subpoena your training records those accounts would be included. Now you have opened the door for them to delve into your deployment history and those call-outs which opens a wide door into your entire search history and not just the specific case under question. You want to limit the scope to the particular case involved and the routine training records. I do have a resume written up on each dog to that indicates the outside training history (workshops, etc) and the deployment history of the dog (dates, type of callout, case outcome). If there is a question over a gap in the training records then I can use the resume to validate the gap.


----------



## Misty Wegner (May 22, 2015)

Excellent, thank you! Great explanation.. I will modify


----------

