K9 units

[dave33]

go back and read Carl's posts. He spoke to the training a couple times and why your situation just isn't reasonable. Basically put, a dog is trained to respond in a particular manner. You may not know what the action to indicate an alert but the handler is. There are times the handler is questioned in court and must explain the alert action and where it is applicable in the case at hand.

as well, if the dog repeatedly is used as a front to search cars without results, that dog really does become a liability. If the dog is shown to be unreliable, every conviction that resulted from previous actions using that dog in that manner are not subject to appeal based on the reliability of the dog.

I understand what you are saying. But, we are right back to relying on one man's word (trainer). Also how would a defendant (if not o.j. with the dreamteam) ever get enough evidence to discredit the officer and the dog. Do you think it reasonable to assume the o.p. will be able to get records where the searches where fruitless where most likely no records exist? Does the average person have those resources? Also, reasonably what percent of times do you think the dogs reliability would be questioned. One in a thousand? One in ten thousand? Even one in a hundred (which is very liberal) leaves a lot of room for people to fall through the cracks. I bet 95 % or better of drug cases end in a plea, of the remaining % realistically how many are going to file a motion to suppress based on an unreliable dog. It may happen sometimes but I feel my view is more realistic and much more common.

 

[xylene]

Drug dogs.

In reality, dogs often miss or are confused.

I have been present in real world and training situations where a dog failed to find narcotics.

In a publicity training scenario the dog embarrassingly failed to locate the drug bait, despite it being barely concealed (just under a couch cushion) and despite that the cocaine bait was at least the size of a VHS tape...

This was not the only time I saw the dog not find it.

I am thoroughly convinced the dog, while truly equipped with a well developed nose, is really just a prop.

If the signals are barely discernible, and only to the handler at that... then I find it completely credible that the dog is capable of picking up on equally subtle handler behaviors to signal on command.

"Opps, sir the dog did his thing, so now we can search your vehicle for weed and cocaine that probably should be legally regulated not banned and punished with prison, but my union and my fellow justice workers can't take a pay cut so... 3 to 5 for you in prison industrial complex. I got a pension to justify as more worthy than those pothead in the American Teaches Federation..."

 

[CdwJava]

I understand what you are saying. But, we are right back to relying on one man's word (trainer). Also how would a defendant (if not o.j. with the dreamteam) ever get enough evidence to discredit the officer and the dog.

The training records of the dog and the officer are available through discovery. How the dog is trained to alert is likewise available.

The system is designed to act on the assumption that the officer tells the truth. Of course the whole system falls on its head if an officer goes rogue and decides to lie about everything. But, think about it, if he kept lying and said his dog alerted, and no drugs were found, this will play against the dog's reliability and eventually the agency would either have to put the dog to pasture or look into the matter. Either way, the dog's alerts would be rendered worthless and any cases made with the dog could be challenged.

Since I think you are trying to get an admission as to whether a dirty cop could make crap up and lie, sure. Yes, it could happen. It would be hard to maintain such a streak of falsehoods without getting buy-in by a whole lot of officers and supervisors, but, it is possible in theory ... just not probable.

Do you think it reasonable to assume the o.p. will be able to get records where the searches where fruitless where most likely no records exist?

Yes.

Does the average person have those resources?

Yes. It is called Discovery.

Also, reasonably what percent of times do you think the dogs reliability would be questioned. One in a thousand? One in ten thousand?

When drugs are found? Most will plead guilty so as to get drug diversion. But, I think the dog is challenged relatively often. That's why the handlers and the trainers keep these records - because there ARE so many challenges.

I bet 95 % or better of drug cases end in a plea, of the remaining % realistically how many are going to file a motion to suppress based on an unreliable dog.

Maybe they do. But, in those instances the defendant KNOWS he had the drugs and got caught. He also knows the dog alerted properly ... they found the drugs!

It may happen sometimes but I feel my view is more realistic and much more common.

I disagree. I have been in agencies with canines my entire career, and they are a pain in the tookus. The amount of record-keeping that must be maintained to retain the reliability of the dog is anal. And since there is absolutely no incentive to risk federal or state prison to pretend a dog alerted when he or she did not, I just don't think that what you believe is anything more than an aberration. If you have any stats to show otherwise, I would be fascinated to see them.

 

[dave33]

757371]The training records of the dog and the officer are available through discovery. How the dog is trained to alert is likewise available.

I mean records in the field. Not what is made in the department. Actual proof.



Th

[

/QUOTE]e system is designed to act on the assumption that the officer tells the truth. Of course the whole system falls on its head if an officer goes rogue and decides to lie about everything. But, think about it, if he kept lying and said his dog alerted, and no drugs were found, this will play against the dog's reliability and eventually the agency would either have to put the dog to pasture or look into the matter. Either way, the dog's alerts would be rendered worthless and any cases made with the dog could be challenged.

Eventually is the key. How long is that?

Since I think you are trying to get an admission as to whether a dirty cop could make crap up and lie, sure. Yes, it could happen. It would be hard to maintain such a streak of falsehoods without getting buy-in by a whole lot of officers and supervisors, but, it is possible in theory ... just not probable.

Not true, I seek no such admissions we all have our opini

Maybe they do. But, in those instances the defendant KNOWS he had the drugs and got caught. He also knows the dog alerted properly ... they found the drugs!

Not entirely true. Sometimes powerful forces are exerted for a guilty plea. Loss of children felony records and a hundred other things. Some innocent people plead guilty.

I disagree. I have been in agencies with canines my entire career, and they are a pain in the tookus. The amount of record-keeping that must be maintained to retain the reliability of the dog is anal. And since there is absolutely no incentive to risk federal or state prison to pretend a dog alerted when he or she did not, I just don't think that what you believe is anything more than an aberration. If you have any stats to show otherwise, I would be fascinated to see them.

As you pointed out before the expense is big. I think that would make the agency more reluctant to admit failure and begin again. The problem with stats is accurate ones do not exist.

 

[You Are Guilty]

If the officer is going to lie about the dog alerting, why would he waste the time and not just lie and say the driver consented to the search?

 

[dave33]

If the officer is going to lie about the dog alerting, why would he waste the time and not just lie and say the driver consented to the search?

Saying he consented when he did not would be blatant. The actions of the dog are open to the trainers interpretation only.

 

[justalayman]

Saying he consented when he did not would be blatant. The actions of the dog are open to the trainers interpretation only.

not if challenged in court and if there is nobody around to testify to anything contrary to the cops claims (other than the defendant that we know is lying or they wouldn't be in court) what difference would it make?

 

[dave33]

[

QUOTE=justalayman;2757431]not if challenged in court and if there is nobody around to testify to anything contrary to the cops claims (other than the defendant that we know is lying or they wouldn't be in court) what difference would it make?[/QUOTE

]

In my opinion, it would be easier to justify. I do not mean to anyone else or any court but to themselves. The word "liar" cuts deep. A mistaken interpretation is much easier to stomach. This isn't something easily explained but you know what I mean. Maybe it comes down to human nature, I think most people would choose to be creative than blatantly lie regarless of the witness situation.

 

[You Are Guilty]

If a cop is going to lie, under oath, about the dog alerting, I see no logical reason why they would not also lie and say they had consent, especially when consent is a much stronger argument against suppression. A liar is a liar, no?

 

[tranquility]

Since dogs are trained and rewarded to alert in a certain way, defense attorneys are taught how to shred officer's testimony when they say the dog alerted in a non-standard way. Read the link I provided. There is one legal paper, with references, dealing with officers testifying about how they "know" what the dog is trying to tell them, even if it is not in the manner rewarded. Case citations too.

 

[gawm]

About 8 years ago I was pulled over for expired tags. They thought I had drugs for some reason. Didn't consent, there were about 3 sheriffs cars at the time. They finally called the k9 unit out. As they walked it around my vintage (piece of crap) 87 Monte I saw the officer pull the leash. As he did that the dog jumped on the trunk. They told me the dog "alerted" them that there was drugs. They seem pissed when I told them they and the dog were liars. four officers tore the inside of my car out only to find nothing. The funniest part was that they did not even search the trunk where the dog jump on because they didn't know how to open it.( no lock, long screw driver)
All I got was a ticket for expired tags. I tend to think its a bunch of B.S.
cdwJava, are you telling me that there is a record of this false positive somewhere and that a defense lawyer can subpoena it? Kind of hard to believe.

 

[CdwJava]

cdwJava, are you telling me that there is a record of this false positive somewhere and that a defense lawyer can subpoena it? Kind of hard to believe.

Probably, yes.

There will be a record of the callout with dispatch and likely with officer's logs, and unless they are all playing fast and loose (and I cannot speak for the training or qualifications of officers in other states) there should be a record of the results of the callout. And, of course, the recollection of the officers involved. If the K9 officer was doing it properly, he should have recorded the event.

Of course, for all you know the dog DID alert and the tug was something else entirely.

I can't address every particular "what if" and "maybe." Anomalies happen, and there are dumb idiots even in police work.