the k9 truth

[TaunTaun]

But if the dog indicates on only a trace scent, out in the field there is no way to ascertain whether that was a valid hit or not except by training history and what the dog has shown in training scenarios.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

The assumption underlying Officer Chompy to testify is that he is reliable.

If the dog proves to be unreliable they should be disqualified as a basis to search.

If my idea is a bad one (ask any ex-girlfriend, I have lots of them), then want is a better way to test of the dogs? Certification every period of time? Pop quizzes? I am open to suggestions.

 

[jeremy]

You should track its performance through certifications of known amounts in controlled conditions. Drugs are different because of the factors I mentioned earlier. With explosives, imagine someone filled the trunk of a car with explosives let it sit for 12 hours then removed it and had your dog sniff the car. There is a good chance he would indicate. Would you consider that a fasle indication? That's a strike. Three cars like that and your dog's out and can't be used again in court The impossible part of Kirk's scenario is the uncertainty of field work. In testing conditions it's different because you control the variables and know that there is no residue or lingering odor.

That is exactly the reason I track whether the dog hits are positive, false positive, or negative. Just like drugs, Explosives may have been present weeks ago, or better yet it just might have been a farmer hauling fertilizer.

But tracking the conditions (IN THE FIELD) you can have a truer idea of whether the dog is on to something or if it is a false positive.

 

[rw496]

But if the dog indicates on only a trace scent, out in the field there is no way to ascertain whether that was a valid hit or not except by training history and what the dog has shown in training scenarios.

Exactly.

 

[TaunTaun]

Trying to prove a false positive is just about as bad as proving that bigfoot exists due to a couple loose hairs, a foot impression, and some grainy video from the early 80's.

 

[rw496]

The assumption underlying Officer Chompy to testify is that he is reliable.

If the dog proves to be unreliable they should be disqualified as a basis to search.

If my idea is a bad one (ask any ex-girlfriend, I have lots of them), then want is a better way to test of the dogs? Certification every period of time? Pop quizzes? I am open to suggestions.

I agree with the disqualification of bad dogs. The first problem is the lack of a standardized field definition of a false positive. Only the presence of residue..or odor..but no dope? I think the only way to truly strike a dog is in known conditions. One of your test cars is controlled and never had dope in it and a dog hits during certification..strike. If the dog can't pass the cert. he can't work.

 

[rw496]

That is exactly the reason I track whether the dog hits are positive, false positive, or negative. Just like drugs, Explosives may have been present weeks ago, or better yet it just might have been a farmer hauling fertilizer.

But tracking the conditions (IN THE FIELD) you can have a truer idea of whether the dog is on to something or if it is a false positive.

Can you provide a definition of those three things? It might help guide this thing along.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Trying to prove a false positive is just about as bad as proving that bigfoot exists due to a couple loose hairs, a foot impression, and some grainy video from the early 80's.

Cool.

Keep track of all the reported sightings of Bigfoot as the denominator and then keep track of the times we can put a boot on the Bigfoot as the nominator and that is our percentage. Samey same with Officer Chompy.

 

[jeremy]

Trying to prove a false positive is just about as bad as proving that bigfoot exists due to a couple loose hairs, a foot impression, and some grainy video from the early 80's.

Trust me I know just how hard it is to find/or not, a false positive. Nothing like crawling over, under, around through a Semi in 100+ temps in full battle rattle just to go nope nothing here. Better yet to find out that 3 weeks before he hauled explosives and fertilizer for a Mine somewhere...

 

[Kirk Freeman]

The first problem is the lack of a standardized field definition of a false positive.

It is defined in the legislation.

If one of the four substances, is not found then it is a false positive.

 

[jeremy]

Can you provide a definition of those three things? It might help guide this thing along.

Positive, Hit by dog something present.
False Positive, Hit by dog nothing present.
Negative, No hit by dog nothing present.

Does that about some up what they are?!

 

[jeremy]

I agree with the disqualification of bad dogs. The first problem is the lack of a standardized field definition of a false positive. Only the presence of residue..or odor..but no dope? I think the only way to truly strike a dog is in known conditions. One of your test cars is controlled and never had dope in it and a dog hits during certification..strike. If the dog can't pass the cert. he can't work.

One other thing I would add to this is the Disqualification of Bad Handlers...

I have seen dogs that will work better with some handlers than others...

But, I do think you are on the right path with the Certification thing. Make it quarterly?!

 

[.45 Dave]

I'm confused. I thought the TSA did all this.

 

[Westside]

It is not the officer doing the smelling, it is Chompy.

The officers are all now testifying that the dogs are batting 1.000. They are counting as hits when Chompy comes up empty. As it stands now the dogs are infallible and use of the dog is a free search.

Every time the dog gets out of the back of car, we keep track of how many times it finds something.

How dare you think that officer CHOMPY can make a mistake. you are just a dimwitted peon. they are highly trained law enforcement Canis lupus familiaris. You are just trying to create trouble.

 

[strahd71]

nevada has truly gone to the dogs

jake

 

[GBuck]

Ok, Kirk, so you're saying that Chompy hits, but I find nothing, that's a strike on the dog.

Now, you come over to my house, and I tell you, "A black mamba came slithering through here a second ago." You check it out, but don't find anything. Two minutes later, you're on the ground dying because you were bitten.

Is this my fault because you didn't find it? No.

If a dog says there is something there and an officer doesn't find it, is it the dog's fault? No.

That's why everyone is saying the only results can come from true controlled tests. Otherwise, it's not fair to the dog that Officer Soandso didn't find it. We don't know for sure if something was there or not.

Maybe a better answer is more frequent qualifications?

 

[IndyDave1776]

Ok, Kirk, so you're saying that Chompy hits, but I find nothing, that's a strike on the dog.

Now, you come over to my house, and I tell you, "A black mamba came slithering through here a second ago." You check it out, but don't find anything. Two minutes later, you're on the ground dying because you were bitten.

Is this my fault because you didn't find it? No.

If a dog says there is something there and an officer doesn't find it, is it the dog's fault? No.

That's why everyone is saying the only results can come from true controlled tests. Otherwise, it's not fair to the dog that Officer Soandso didn't find it. We don't know for sure if something was there or not.

Maybe a better answer is more frequent qualifications?

Your logic works well enough, but the problem is that in the event that I buy a used car previously owned by a drug dealer, then I should simply accept being subjected to searches based on the infallible dog's nose regardless of my lack of participation in the drug trade if we are to hold to the standard of a positive indication constituting probable cause. That strikes me as a major Fourth Amendment violation, residue or not. Ditto for possessing cash, the overwhelming majority of which in circulation has drug residue on it.

 

[jeremy]

How about a System that tracks the Dogs both during Certs and in the Field, and also tracks the Handlers during Certs and in the Field...

 

[GBuck]

Your logic works well enough, but the problem is that in the event that I buy a used care previously owned by a drug dealer, then I should simply accept being subjected to searches based on the infallible dog's nose regardless of my lack of participation in the drug trade if we are to hold to the standard of a positive indication constituting probable cause. That strikes me as a major Fourth Amendment violation, residue or not. Ditto for possessing cash, the overwhelming majority of which in circulation has drug residue on it.

This is really a question that I don't know the answer to....

Doesn't the LEO have to have a reason for the dog to be brought out anyways? It's not like every officer has a Chompy riding shotgun.

 

[Westside]

This is really a question that I don't know the answer to....

Doesn't the LEO have to have a reason for the dog to be brought out anyways? It's not like every officer has a Chompy riding shotgun.

nope. They use chompy to get a reason to search.