So they do not make a fuss, drug detection dogs are taught to learn two kinds of alerting: the passive and the aggressive. Drug dogs use an aggressive alert, where they dig and paw at the spot where they smell the drugs without causing damage to personal or business property. When they smell the drugs without causing damage to personal or business property. When sniffing for explosives they will use a passive approach as scratching the service could be dangerous.
A drug sniffer dog or drug detection dog is a dog that is trained to and works at using its senses, mainly their sense of smell, to detect a variety of substances including drugs. Their sense of smell is two thousand times much stronger, and fifty times more sensitive than that of a human’s which is why a sniffer dog is used for a number of security operations.
Canine Sniffer dogs and their handlers undergo extensive training for months in order to be certified and are successful because of their ability to work as a team. They will carry out testing and retraining throughout their entire careers to ensure their skills are reliable and up to standard. (Dogs typically stay assigned to the handler they were trained with and the team get re-tested together)
Sniffer dogs have totally no interest in the drugs themselves. What theyre actually searching for is their favourite toy. Their training programme has led them to associate that toy with the smell of drugs. The sniffer dogs strong desire to hunt drives them to seek out what theyve been trained to find, so they do not falsely signal in order to get a reward, in their minds, finding traces of a drug is the reward.
Drug detection dogs can be used for a range of operations and assignments including but not limited to; Airports, Marine applications, Media solutions, Hospitals and mental health facilities together with schools, colleges and universities, events, prisons, businesses and homes, who all see the benefits of using sniffer dogs for tighter security measures. They can be used to detect drugs on individuals, within buildings, open areas and vehicles.
“The record shows that during 79 field deployments, Rocky alerted 41 times. Seven times, no contraband was found following the alert and there was no explanation for the alert. Another seven times, no contraband was found following the alert, but there was a reasonable explanation for the presence of the scent of drugs. On three occasions, Rocky alerted but it was not documented whether any contraband was found. Based on the evidence of Rockys training and certification and his field records, we conclude that the district court did not err in finding that the canine sniff was reliable…”
For your dog and in your testimony, odor is odor. It is either there or it is not. Do not fall into the trap of legitimizing questions that use misleading terms by trying to answer them. Instead, explain that such questions do not make sense as applied to narcotics dog handling. Do not be afraid to ask the defense attorney what he means in using those terms. Force him to define the terms so you can better understand the issue or goal. This is kind of fun, because many attorneys do not understand the terms themselves, nor can they explain them to you.
These factors can contribute to an extremely frustrating experience on the witness stand for the handler. That is why it is imperative that the handler dot every “i” and cross every “t” when testifying in court. Educating not only the defense attorney and the prosecutor, but also the judge, is an essential element in a courtroom victory. Being thorough and patient with your courtroom testimony and not becoming sarcastic or combative with the defense attorney is the desired approach. There is a reason why they say “You’ll catch more flies with a teaspoon of honey than with a barrel of vinegar” — because it is true.
It is common knowledge that a well-trained police canine will alert to the odor of four or five basic narcotics. However, in courtroom testimony or a deposition, handlers can get lazy. All too often, they mistakenly say things like, “My dog alerted to the cocaine,” or “My dog alerts to the presence of a narcotic substance.” Are those statements true and accurate?
A Relevant Case Recently, the Supreme Court of Nebraska examined the testimony, records and deployment statistics of a K-9 team when they wrote (in their comments on State v. Howard, 282 Neb. 352, 803 N.W.2d 450 (September 2011):
When drug dogs are certified, they’re usually certified as part of a team that includes a handler. One concern criminal defense lawyers have with drug dog handlers is that sometimes the drug dog will falsely indicate to the odor due to the behavior of the handler.
When narcotics are found after a dog indicated the odor of narcotics, it doesn’t necessarily mean the dog properly alerted and indicated.
As discussed above, the way dogs are trained is they are rewarded for specific behaviors. Handlers can influence that behavior not only in the way they reward the dog, but also in the way they guide the dog and/or use the dog to search a vehicle or house. For example, if a drug dog handler runs the dog around a car two times before the dog indicates to the odor of narcotics, there is probably no issue. However, if the handler runs the dog around the car six or seven times, the handler is telling the dog that he or she wants it to alert and indicate. The dog knows that if it alerts and indicates, it will be given a reward. What do you think the dog will do?
The training methodology is simple. You are supposed to reward specific behavior. The dog becomes confused when the dog handler begins to reward other types of behavior. Eventually, the dog does whatever behavior it takes to get the reward. Failure to provide consistency in training ultimately leads to an unreliable drug dog.
If you believe your car or home has been unlawfully searched due to a faulty drug dog sniff, please contact Berry Law.
K9 Officers demonstrate drug search
The Fourth Amendment protects a person’s right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure. One of the tools law enforcement most often uses in ways that potentially violate this right is that of the drug detection dog.
Drug dogs are a normal practice American police use to conduct searches and sniff out drugs and contraband. Normally, without emergency circumstances, an officer must have probable cause to search a person’s belongings, such as their car or house. Drug dogs are used by law enforcement to provide that probable cause where none yet exists.
If police violate a person’s Fourth Amendment rights with a drug dog, a motion to suppress whatever evidence they discovered through the violation should be filed.
Police need reasonable suspicion of a traffic violation to pull you over in the first place. Then, in order to search the car, they need probable cause that you have committed some crime other than the traffic violation. So unless an officer already has probable cause, they need your permission to search your vehicle, or to allow a drug dog to sniff the outside of your car. If an officer is asking for permission to do either, it usually means they do not already have probable cause and need your permission. Many people don’t know it is within their rights to refuse consent for police to search your belongings at this point. If you say yes and consent, it becomes legal for the officer to search your car or use a drug dog.
In recent years the U.S. Supreme Court has provided certain limits as to the use of drug dogs, explained below.
Drug Dogs and Airport Luggage: United States v. Place: Letting a drug dog sniff a piece of luggage at the airport is not a “search” under the Fourth Amendment. Police do not need probable cause or a warrant to let the dog sniff your luggage.
In Harris, the driver refused to give officers permission to use drug dogs to sniff his car while he was pulled over for a routine traffic stop. The officers walked a drug dog around his car anyway, the dog alerted, and the officers searched his car, finding pseudoephedrine and other supplies used in the manufacture of methamphetamine.
The particular dog the officers used to sniff Harris’s car was trained to detect several different types of illegal substances, but not pseudoephedrine. Harris argued at trial that the dog’s alert was false and did not give the officer probable cause to search his car, so the drugs should be suppressed as evidence.
This case raised two of the classic problems with using drug dogs to provide probable cause:
Compounding this problem is that most states do not hold drug dogs to any statutory standard of performance. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, the federal court for North Carolina, has accepted as evidence dogs with success rates of 43 percent.
Florida v. Jardines: An officer needs probable cause to bring a drug dog up on your porch and to your front door. The courts give enhanced protection to people’s homes against search and seizure. A person has the right to a reasonable expectation of privacy in their own home, and this extends to the immediate area surrounding the home (called the “curtilage”) like the porches and side gardens.
This obviously does not cover every potential interaction a person can have with the police. An experienced criminal defense attorney will be able to assert the available defenses relevant to your unique situation. Contact us now to schedule a consultation with our experienced team of criminal defense lawyers.