court cases

[DFrost]

Originally Posted by martemchik

Great...now I have to look up precedent about what air is free. I guess the air around my home isn't free, the air around my vehicle is free, but the air around me as I walk in a public place isn't free? I'm not arguing right or wrong with you...I'm pointing out the confusion in all this. I'm also saying it makes no sense that a law enforcement officer can decide to use a tool...that isn't easily available to the public, that INTRUDES into a person's personal property, whenever they feel they want to.

And its great that things like what Cliff described don't happen under you, you're one of how many K9 officers (I'm assuming you are one). I also want you to know that I would have no problem with an officer using a dog, I think its a great tool...but the law just isn't clear on these issues, its very situational, which it shouldn't be.

Also...assume this...if the air around me in a public area isn't free for your dog to sniff...can I get out of my vehicle and follow your dog around and claim that it is invading my personal space? Or would a gun get drawn in .5 seconds and I'd get told to get back into my vehicle because that air isn't truly free.

The show I was talking about is called K9 Cops I believe, it follows a squad of K9s in the St. Paul/Minneapolis PD I believe. It's quite interesting, and shows how useful K9 officers are and all they do...it was just that one quote from the officer that was shocking. It made it sound like a robbery in the "area" allowed the cops free reign to pull over anything that moved out of the "area."

Officers use all sorts of tools that aren't readily available to the public. Can you run a computer check on a drivers license on your in car computer, can you run the vehicle registration, can you tell if the person has a warrant. do you have a radio to the police station and the availability to talk to them. I also have a bullet resistant vest, several guns, pepper spray etc, all tools. They all have their purpose and they all have their use. They can all be very intrusive. Doesn't mean I use them all, all the time, but none the less, they are there and available to sue.

As far as the "air" being free, it isn't always free. It is however, around your vehicle that has been stopped for a violation on public streets. You'd have to research the differences about "free air" depending on where you are located and why you are located there. I have to know the difference to do my job.

dFrost

[ladylaw203]

Originally Posted by jocoyn

----------------------

I can say that I certainly know black folks in the South who have been pulled over and harrassed for what they jokingly call a "DWB" (Driving while black). I think it depends on where you are but you get into rural parts of SC and it is like a third world country. If you don't believe it watch "corridor of shame" about schools in the I-95 corridor.

.

Well, you dont know many. Again, there are racial profiling laws in place that require documentation of all contacts with the public. Stats are kept. Video tapes must be kept for months. I can assure you that any racial profiling is taken seriously and is not tolerated. The ignorant ones doing will eventually pay for it

[martemchik]

Ok...you guys are getting extremely defensive. But...after rereading the article, its not the decision of the officer to send out the dog (no matter how much documentation you have) its the training of the dog that could be challenged. So how do you feel about that? That the defense can bring in everything to do with the K9 officer and challenge it and in the case stated in the article they proved the dog was not reliable...no idea how they did that, but you both seem to have a very strong conviction that your dog is extremely reliable (understandably its your dog). How would you prove that in court? To a judge that might then throw out the key evidence and therefore the charge against the accused.

In my opinion, anything less than a 100% correct alert rate can be challenged, and the K9 can be then called unreliable. I know enough about law to know that the smallest thing will be found and challenged if the defense is good enough. So how would you feel to go into court, and then get told that nothing your dog does from now on is admissible in court (if I read the article correctly that's what happened to Aldo).

[jocoyn]

Soo you do know that David and Renee are career K9 Handlers, and that David trains other police dog handlers and that Renee (past president NNDDA) is a ceritifying official for NNDDA and that both have testified in court frequently?

[DFrost]

Originally Posted by martemchik

Ok...you guys are getting extremely defensive. But...after rereading the article, its not the decision of the officer to send out the dog (no matter how much documentation you have) its the training of the dog that could be challenged. So how do you feel about that? That the defense can bring in everything to do with the K9 officer and challenge it and in the case stated in the article they proved the dog was not reliable...no idea how they did that, but you both seem to have a very strong conviction that your dog is extremely reliable (understandably its your dog). How would you prove that in court? To a judge that might then throw out the key evidence and therefore the charge against the accused.

In my opinion, anything less than a 100% correct alert rate can be challenged, and the K9 can be then called unreliable. I know enough about law to know that the smallest thing will be found and challenged if the defense is good enough. So how would you feel to go into court, and then get told that nothing your dog does from now on is admissible in court (if I read the article correctly that's what happened to Aldo).

)" its the training of the dog that could be challenged." When I present the evidence of a well trained dog, I present the documentation of every training aid the dog has had the opportunity to find for the past full year. I also present each time the dog was used in actual deployment and what the results of that deployment were, (whether the dog responded or not) for the past year. then I provide the results of the search, positive or negative, subsequent each response the dog has had during actual deployments for the past year. Keeping in mind we are establishing probable cause, I let the records and the dog's performance, speak for its' self.


I disagree I'm being defensive. Rather, I'm presenting the facts as they are in real life. I have proven that a dog is "extremely reliable" on numerous occasions. I stated in my last post I have testified in State and Federal court. Challenging the training of the dog is routine in cases where the dog is being challenged. The training is being challenged because the dog was used to sniff the exterior of the vehicle, the dog responded, drugs were found, the subject was placed under arrest and is now trying desperately to not go to jail. As for your last question; "So how would you feel to go into court, and then get told that nothing your dog does from now on is admissible in court" If it were to happen to all dogs, then it's time to lock it up, hunker down because the bad guys have won.

DFrost

[martemchik]

Originally Posted by DFrost

)As for your last question; "So how would you feel to go into court, and then get told that nothing your dog does from now on is admissible in court" If it were to happen to all dogs, then it's time to lock it up, hunker down because the bad guys have won.

Any ideas as to why it happened to the dog in the article? Was that just before you guys knew what you would have to do in order to prove your dog was trained well? It's just for my own knowledge as to why something like that would happen. I'm guessing it was failure by the handler to provide some sort of documentation, but I guess you never know for sure what exactly convinced the judge the dog wasn't reliable.

[martemchik]

Originally Posted by jocoyn

Soo you do know that David and Renee are career K9 Handlers, and that David trains other police dog handlers and that Renee (past president NNDDA) is a ceritifying official for NNDDA and that both have testified in court frequently?

And I'm not questioning them or their abilities, I'm questioning the law which governs how they have to do their job.

I wish I had people on this forum that would defend my honor when I'm in a discussion....

[jocoyn]

I was not defending any "honor" just stating they "probably" know what they are talking about here. The idea that detection dogs are not 100% has been known for years and is well documented in accepted standards which have been brought up in court (Have not seen any accepting below 90%).

The doctor who cuts you open did not get 100% on all his tests and actually got by with 70-80%, That blood test for blood borne diseases is probably somewhere in the 99% plus range.

The only thing you expect to be 100% are some computerized machine checks. [which is why the detectability rating on an FMEA risk assessment favors computerized machine checks over human reviews and weights them accordingly]--I think David answered this with the statement "probable cause" not "absolute cause". I would imagine part of the reason cadaver dog indications are considered only "reasonable suspicion" is due to the fact that human remains (for example dried blood, old unmarked graves, etc) are pretty much all over the place and the dog could be indicating on an unrelated HR source.

[ladylaw203]

Originally Posted by jocoyn

I was not defending any "honor" just stating they "probably" know what they are talking about here. The idea that detection dogs are not 100% has been known for years and is well documented in accepted standards which have been brought up in court (Have not seen any accepting below 90%).

The doctor who cuts you open did not get 100% on all his tests and actually got by with 70-80%, That blood test for blood borne diseases is probably somewhere in the 99% plus range.

The only thing you expect to be 100% are some computerized machine checks. [which is why the detectability rating on an FMEA risk assessment favors computerized machine checks over human reviews and weights them accordingly]--I think David answered this with the statement "probable cause" not "absolute cause". I would imagine part of the reason cadaver dog indications are considered only "reasonable suspicion" is due to the fact that human remains (for example dried blood, old unmarked graves, etc) are pretty much all over the place and the dog could be indicating on an unrelated HR source.

nancy is absolutley correct. There is NO such thing as 100% with much in this world. Between the two of us,david and I have a few years doing this. I am at 34 and on my second retirement from an agency. Defensive has nothing to do with it. We are trying to explain the way it is. David and I are both moderators. Your Honor? The discussion has been civil and factual. What exactly is your problem with it? We are trying to address your concerns but you are unfamiliar with search and seizure laws,probable cause etc and case law so it makes it difficult. As I previously stated, reliability in a scent detector dog gets hard to judge in the real world. Maintenance training is a known. The real world is not and stats can be skewed. Say one searched 20 cars and found contraband in 10. 50%?? wellllll not so fast. guess how many times the dogs alert on residual because the guy just unloaded 100lbs. yep had it happen. dope had been cooking in that trunk in July for 200 miles. Passed the dope to another car that we stopped a little further down. so the dog was right on that one. how many others? not black and white out there. One must conduct one's maintenance training correctly and articulate same. What the defense attacks is whatever the current trend is. just the way it works. goes in fads. that is their job. They attack maintenance training, certification standards, etc etc. throw everything out there and see what sticks. The way it is

[jocoyn]

As a civilian, I appreciate this kind of information because I realize the tremendous responsiblity in keeping clear and accurate training records, documenting hours of training etc. and why you absolutely must have national certifications.

The courts have been very reasonable with regards to cadaver dog handlers (perhaps because they don't establish probable cause) but I see the bar constantly being raised and realize bad results in court by one sloppy handler can reflect poorly on all. Nobody wants to be known as the handler who ruined it for everyone else (like the damage done by Sandra Anderson).

I have been documenting our own training reliability (and ensuring my training records contain the SWDOG recommended fields) using the SWGDOG SC2 formula on "blind" problems only but am unclear about if those percentages *should* be kept for maintenance training and if they should be recalculated for intervals between certifications

The NAPWDA cert exceeds the SWGDOG guidelines as it requires 92% with one allowed FA (and if you get a FA, you need 100% because only one mistake is allowed) for the the entire set of problems. NASAR and IPWDA are valid for 2 years which I wonder how the difference between them and SWGDOG would be addressed since SWGDOG has been brought up in court? NNDDA, USPCA? (test not available to civilians)--