Drug Dogs and "The Clever Hans Effect" [Archive] - Glock Talk

PDA

View Full Version : Drug Dogs and "The Clever Hans Effect"


RickD
03-04-2011, 07:39
http://reason.com/archives/2011/02/21/the-mind-of-a-police-dog

Several studies and tests have shown that drug-sniffing dogs, scent hounds, and even explosive-detecting dogs are not nearly as accurate as they have been portrayed in court. A recent Chicago Tribune survey

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2011-01-06/news/ct-met-canine-officers-20110105_1_drug-sniffing-dogs-alex-rothacker-drug-dog

of traffic stops by suburban police departments from 2007 to 2009, for example, found that searches turned up contraband in just 44 percent of the cases where police dogs alerted to the presence of narcotics.

The Economist's "Babbage" blog summarizes a recent study led by Lisa Lit, a neurologist (and former dog handler) at the University of California-Davis, that demonstrates the startling consequences of that confusion:

http://www.economist.com/blogs/babbage/2011/02/animal_behaviour

The results? Dog/handler teams correctly completed a search with no alerts in just 21 of the 144 walk-throughs. The other 123 searches produced an astounding 225 alerts, every one of them false. Even more interesting, the search points designed to trick the handlers (marked by the red slips of paper) were about twice as likely to trigger false alerts as the search points designed to trick the dogs (by luring them with sausages).

This phenomenon is known as the "Clever Hans effect," after a horse that won fame in the early 1900s by stomping out the answers to simply arithmetic questions with his hoof. Hans was indeed clever, but he couldn't do math. Instead he was reading subtle, unintentional cues from the audience and his trainer, who would tense up as Hans began to click his hoof, then relax once Hans hit the answer.

Sam Spade
03-04-2011, 10:03
Our handlers don't know where the stuff is when they train the dogs. Someone else hides the dope or explosive in the training area. Been that way for years. Can't say what the training practices are in IL.

tadbart
03-04-2011, 10:19
Officer: "May I search your car?"
Driver: "No, sir. You may not."
Officer: "Why? If you don't have anything to hide, you shouldn't mind a search. Fine, whatever. I'll get our drug-sniffing dog out here."
...
...
Officer: "Well lookyhere! Ol' Lucky sat down when he sniffed your back tire. That right there is probably cause!"

k9medic
03-04-2011, 10:25
I worked a Narc dog for 4 1/2 years. It can happen depending on how you and the dog were trained.

I never knew where the training aid was hidden, yet my dog found it every time. Different handlers would hid different quantities. We proofed our dogs through numerous sniffs to ensure that we had accurate dogs and we always used real stuff not pseudo.

One such proof was to have another handler use my dog to conduct a sniff. The dog would alert the same no matter who the handler was.

Every single alert that I ever had from my dog turned up one of two things - either the dope, or an admission that there was dope there previously (residual odor) and I documented everything.

Rohniss
03-04-2011, 10:27
Oh look another Balko hit piece.

http://images2.memegenerator.net/Victory-Baby/ImageMacro/3730335/MediumThumbnail.jpg?instanceText=Your-Tears-Are-Delicious

DaBigBR
03-04-2011, 11:39
I've never run a dog, but my experience has been the same as k9medic - either we find something, or we find evidence that something was there (packaging, admissions, etc).

The dog is not infalliable. Period. They are, however, very, very good. Keep in mind that the dog simply is not going to smell a single marijuana seed, or a little bag of meth stuffed inside of the car from outside of the car. The dog is going to smell the odor where people who were using the drug touched. Larger quantities? Yeah, they're probably going to get it.

FiremanMike
03-04-2011, 13:47
Officer: "May I search your car?"
Driver: "No, sir. You may not."
Officer: "Why? If you don't have anything to hide, you shouldn't mind a search. Fine, whatever. I'll get our drug-sniffing dog out here."
...
...
Officer: "Well lookyhere! Ol' Lucky sat down when he sniffed your back tire. That right there is probably cause!"

I like how you cut that scenario off right at the good part...

TBO
03-04-2011, 13:54
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v90/TheeBadOne/TBO/tumblr_lcmh0tlSSW1qe3vj2.gif

WFBont7
03-04-2011, 13:56
I have a single purpose patrol dog and a single purpose narc dog. I can allow the narc dog into a building and he will take me to the drugs. I generally don't have to detail search with him because he is single purpose. Let a trainer or another officer hide your drugs so neither (me or dog) don't know whee the hide is. That stops your problems.

RickD
03-04-2011, 20:26
Interesting defense lawyer brochure:

http://www.ncids.org/Defender%20Training/2007%20Fall%20Conference/DrugDogs.pdf

60 Minutes episode on drug dogs...

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/01/05/60minutes/main591477.shtml

They turned to the ACLU and Jane Gagne, an attorney in Albuquerque, agreed to take the case.

“Personally, I was offended by the concept of drug dogs coming inside of the classroom where the kids are forced to remain in their seats and sniffing the kids,” says Gagne. “And legally speaking, the Fourth Amendment of our constitution prohibits something like that, or should prohibit something like that.”

On top of that question of unreasonable search and seizure, she was also challenging the dog's reliability since she was given no documents about the dog’s training. “And so, we can only assume that none existed, which would explain the dog having had 72 or 73 false alerts within a year. The dog simply wasn't reliable,” says Gagne.
When the facts were presented to the court, the judge told both sides that he wanted them to settle. Gagne made an offer: “If you'll agree to never use drug dogs to sniff the students again, and pay most of our attorneys fees, then we'll drop the lawsuit.”

The school district accepted Gagne's terms and stopped using the drug dog altogether. But the question of whether it was legal to use the dog to sniff the students was left undecided.


Falco's usage reports showed that in controlled tests he could be highly accurate -- correctly alerting more than 90 percent of the time. But in real life situations the results were starkly different.

“The court found that Falco was 35.5 percent accurate,” says Gaines. And a judge ruled that such a low success rate didn't give the police probable cause to make the search.

OFCJIM40
03-04-2011, 20:33
Little advice from a former K9 and someone that works in the Chicago area. When you see "the Chicago Tribune investigated..." stop reading. The Trib is a biased piece of liberal anti-police garbage. Hopefully they'll be bankrupt soon.

Hack
03-04-2011, 22:47
I like a good narc dog. I wish we had a couple here, but we have to borrow someone else and their dog. Nothing against them, it would just be more convenient to have our own.

OFCJIM40
03-05-2011, 02:20
That Defense Brochure would not be news to any halfway well trained or versed K9 team. I can remember almost all those points being covered almost 10 years ago when I first went thru K9 Training during the first week. I also have a problem with the proof reading of the source material if they don't know it's Illinois not Illionois! Lol

TBO
03-05-2011, 06:58
:agree:


The uninformed, or outright biased however, will rally around it.

cowboywannabe
03-05-2011, 07:17
is there such a thing as a residual scent?

can you put some dope in a car for 30 minutes, take it out and 10 minutes later have a dog hit on the spot the dope was?

TBO
03-05-2011, 09:24
Yes there is such a thing as residual scent.


RickD is late to the party. Our newest hater had already posted this, but it got moved.

http://glocktalk.com/forums/showthread.php?p=16960411#post16960411

cowboywannabe
03-05-2011, 09:27
i know, i was being fisheysus....LOL

steveksux
03-05-2011, 09:33
is there such a thing as a residual scent?
Yes, as a matter of fact, God said "Oh NO!!! It'll take me forever to get that smell out of the fish!!!"

Randy

lawman800
03-05-2011, 11:05
I hate it when the facts get in the way of a good liberal agenda.

Snowman92D
03-05-2011, 11:17
The uninformed, or outright biased however, will rally around it.

The dopers are always looking for a ray of hope. :toilet:

TBO
03-05-2011, 11:36
Some of them aren't dopers, just anti-authority, and LE just happens to be the most visible branch of it to target.

DaBigBR
03-05-2011, 12:50
Backed university police on a stop last night. They smelled weed in the vehicle, and the officer thought "scent alone wasn't enough" (his words, not mine), so they requested a dog (isn't that "scent alone???") that hit on the car. Then, they found weed.

One of the turds in the car insisted (and continued to insist) that the handler had tapped on the vehicle to make the dog "hit"? He had no rebuttal to my pointing out that there had indeed been weed in the car.

Dragoon44
03-05-2011, 13:54
"Cop haters and the not very clever Balko effect".

RickD
03-05-2011, 14:55
When you see "the Chicago Tribune investigated..." stop reading.

I guess I should refrain from citing "studies" from www.norml.org and www.hempbeach.com ? :embarassed:

OLY-M4gery
03-05-2011, 15:03
is there such a thing as a residual scent?

can you put some dope in a car for 30 minutes, take it out and 10 minutes later have a dog hit on the spot the dope was?

How does a dog track a person?

S.O.Interceptor
03-05-2011, 15:06
of traffic stops by suburban police departments from 2007 to 2009, for example, found that searches turned up contraband in just 44 percent of the cases where police dogs alerted to the presence of narcotics.

Well no ****!!!! It happens everywhere all the time. It's because the terds had dope in the car in the past and moved it prior to the traffic stop. So what's the problem?

TBO
03-05-2011, 20:16
BALKO

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v90/TheeBadOne/TBO/baghdad20bob-1.jpg

RickD
03-05-2011, 20:20
The Trib is a biased piece of liberal anti-police garbage. Hopefully they'll be bankrupt soon.

Here is what the Tribune said about themselves...

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/chi-principles,0,3930081.story

The Chicago Tribune believes in the traditional principles of limited government; maximum individual responsibility; minimum restriction of personal liberty, opportunity and enterprise. It believes in free markets, free will and freedom of expression. These principles, while traditionally conservative, are guidelines and not reflexive dogmas.

The Tribune brings a Midwestern sensibility to public debate. It is suspicious of untested ideas.

The Tribune places great emphasis on the integrity of government and the private institutions that play a significant role in society. The newspaper does this in the belief that the people cannot consent to be governed unless they have knowledge of, and faith in, the leaders and operations of government. The Tribune embraces the diversity of people and perspectives in its community. It is dedicated to the future of the Chicago region.

That sounds pretty conservative, so, regarding your possibly drug-induced confusion, I'm thinking your dog stands a 50/50 chance of alerting on you.

RickD
03-05-2011, 20:27
The Trib is a biased piece of liberal anti-police garbage.

Another point, what did the Tribune publish in this story that was factually incorrect? It sounds like they used data collected by PD.

Kahr_Glockman
03-05-2011, 20:28
And Bill Clinton didnt have sexual relations with Monica.

RickD
03-05-2011, 20:32
One such proof was to have another handler use my dog to conduct a sniff. The dog would alert the same no matter who the handler was.

Anecdotes are nice, but how did your dog (and others) score in last year's National Standards Test? ICMTU.

OldCurlyWolf
03-05-2011, 20:48
Officer: "May I search your car?"
Driver: "No, sir. You may not."
Officer: "Why? If you don't have anything to hide, you shouldn't mind a search. Fine, whatever. I'll get our drug-sniffing dog out here."
...
...
Officer: "Well lookyhere! Ol' Lucky sat down when he sniffed your back tire. That right there is probably cause!"


Go ahead and check the tire. Break it down. And when you find there is nothing there, here is a hand pump for you to air up my tire. Or you can pay for the tow truck and my time at $150 per hour.

(I don't drive a little car either. It is a 3/4 ton truck with off road tires. Hold a LOT of air.)

RickD
03-05-2011, 20:48
Some of them aren't dopers, just anti-authority, and LE just happens to be the most visible branch of it to target.

Interesting concept. So I started a thread in Civil Liberties to explore it.

http://glocktalk.com/forums/showthread.php?p=16992948#post16992948

DaBigBR
03-05-2011, 21:58
http://glocktalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=622412

My thoughts:

The OP and his buddies are here to argue and start a fight. They are not going to listen to reason and will dismiss any logical argument in furtherance of that objective. None of them seem to have any direct experience in these matters and are relying on reports from the media.

The officers and others here who have seen good working dogs in action are reporting their observations and opinions based upong experience. Some of these folks either are or were working dog handlers.

Nobody is going to change anybody's opinion, and the nature of the thread violates the intentions of the point behind the Cop Talk forum.

OFCJIM40
03-06-2011, 00:18
I think RickD is just a shortened version of being "Rick rolleD". For those not familiar:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rickrolling

jedi573
03-06-2011, 01:03
Some good points here. I think using figures such as, "Only x percentage of searches actually yielded contraband" can be a little misleading. I called out a dog on a car once on the interstate and the dog hit on the door handle. The single occupant finally admitted that a friend who smoked had opened and closed that door using the handle...three days earlier, before the driver spent those days traveling across the country.

That dog got a "good boy" out of that one. :)

Around here, the training is double-blind.

Good discussion.

Andy

k9medic
03-06-2011, 06:02
Anecdotes are nice, but how did your dog (and others) score in last year's National Standards Test? ICMTU.



Not too good actually... He's been dead for 6 years though, so I'll give him a break.

I hardly consider my factual observations of my dogs training anectodal - for that matter the courts happened to agree.

We certified through USPCA with a 98%. This does not mean 98% accurate (we were 100% accurate), you get points off for certain things. We also certified and competed at the International Police K9 conference in 2000, 2001, 2002 and 2003.

wprebeck
03-06-2011, 06:56
Not too good actually... He's been dead for 6 years though, so I'll give him a break.

I hardly consider my factual observations of my dogs training anectodal - for that matter the courts happened to agree.

We certified through USPCA with a 98%. This does not mean 98% accurate (we were 100% accurate), you get points off for certain things. We also certified and competed at the International Police K9 conference in 2000, 2001, 2002 and 2003.

Well, you being an actual handler and all. You can't possibly know more than a media outlet about K9 work. Further, your experiences, and those of other K9 handlers on this board, is nothing more than anecdotal. See, someone else who doesn't do the job knows more than you folks do.

Especially when the results fit an agenda that one has.

k9medic
03-06-2011, 07:28
I know that there are some bad handlers out there so I don't doubt that there are some who trigger their dog to alert.. I watched them fail in the certification process.

When I first got into law enforcement I read a quote by Ramsey Clark "who will protect the public when the police violate the law?" My signature also translates to to "who will guard the guardians."

I have exemplified my career as a law enforcement officer by these two quotes, which allows me to be unbiased and factual in my approach towards enforcement action. If I have to lie to get a conviction then I am no better than the guy I arrested. Either do good police work or don't even bother.

Too bad you cannot convince everyone that we are not all out to take away freedom.

I will add that I would much rather entertain these types of questions from people like Rick who have been on the forum for some time rather than some new guy who just started posting to stir things up.

txleapd
03-06-2011, 10:26
I know that there are some bad handlers out there so I don't doubt that there are some who trigger their dog to alert.. I watched them fail in the certification process.

When I first got into law enforcement I read a quote by Ramsey Clark "who will protect the public when the police violate the law?" My signature also translates to to "who will guard the guardians."

I have exemplified my career as a law enforcement officer by these two quotes, which allows me to be unbiased and factual in my approach towards enforcement action. If I have to lie to get a conviction then I am no better than the guy I arrested. Either do good police work or don't even bother.

Too bad you cannot convince everyone that we are not all out to take away freedom.

I will add that I would much rather entertain these types of questions from people like Rick who have been on the forum for some time rather than some new guy who just started posting to stir things up.

Very good post, sir.... I just have one issue, and that is giving any credibility to someone just because they have been a member of GT for some time, especially when that person has such a low post count.

There are any number of possibilities to explain it. One, of course, being that he's been in prison for most the time, because a drug dog hit on his car.... :dunno:

Trent0341
03-06-2011, 10:51
Been involved in hundreds of searches with K9 hitting. I've never had them hit and not found either actual narcotics or indicators of.

DaBigBR,
I find it odd how many cops are reluctant to search based on plain smell. You'll cause yourself more problems in supression/court when you don't act immediately to the smell. You leave yourself open to a lot of questions that way.

RickD
03-06-2011, 12:29
No double-blind testing? No national standards?

DaBigBR:
The OP and his buddies are here to argue and start a fight. They are not going to listen to reason and will dismiss any logical argument in furtherance of that objective.

While we may or may not be here to "start a fight" it sure is more interesting than the usual "Does this duty belt make my ass look fat" threads.

In my line of work, "logical arguments" come *after* quality data and analysis.

DaBigBR
03-06-2011, 12:45
Been involved in hundreds of searches with K9 hitting. I've never had them hit and not found either actual narcotics or indicators of.

DaBigBR,
I find it odd how many cops are reluctant to search based on plain smell. You'll cause yourself more problems in supression/court when you don't act immediately to the smell. You leave yourself open to a lot of questions that way.

I agree.


DaBigBR:

While we may or may not be here to "start a fight" it sure is more interesting than the usual "Does this duty belt make my ass look fat" threads.

In my line of work, "logical arguments" come *after* quality data and analysis.

Good for you. Read the thread on what this subforum is here for.

txleapd
03-06-2011, 13:52
RickD, this is not place for you to question whether it no there are national standards for K9 handling, or drug interdiction... Please refer yourself to sticky about what this forum is here for, that was posted by this messageboard's owner. I draw your attention to the very 1st paragraph...

"Folks, I did not create this forum to give people a place to ***** about cops, or to question the morality or legality of their practices. You might have a burning need to do so, but this is not the place for it." - Eric

I'm sick of your game, and am reporting you to the mods. Just a head's up...

RussP
03-06-2011, 14:45
Here is what the Tribune said about themselves...

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/chi-principles,0,3930081.story

That sounds pretty conservative, so, regarding your possibly drug-induced confusion, I'm thinking your dog stands a 50/50 chance of alerting on you.

Another point, what did the Tribune publish in this story that was factually incorrect? It sounds like they used data collected by PD.Anecdotes are nice, but how did your dog (and others) score in last year's National Standards Test? ICMTU.No double-blind testing? No national standards?

DaBigBR:


While we may or may not be here to "start a fight" it sure is more interesting than the usual "Does this duty belt make my ass look fat" threads.

In my line of work, "logical arguments" come *after* quality data and analysis.Besides posting links, those are your only comments in this thread. What exact point are you wanting to make here??

RickD
03-06-2011, 15:11
My first point was to start a dialog.

Now that I've heard others chime in, I'm wondering about the use of dogs to initiate more "direct" searches based on what appears to be over-sensitized animals (assuming the handler isn't coaxing Hans, so to speak).

71 out of 72 false hits. Okay, the hits might have been caused by a high school drug dealer dusting himself off in 2nd-Period English class. If that's the case, the dog doesn't work well with the background level of chemicals. This makes a higher than proper number of people subject to further search.

For example, that hit on the car door handle. The owner said that it was his druggy friend-of-the-family. But it might also have been the guy at Quickie-Lube. That hit on the front door... was that from the Postman who dropped off the Certified Receipt in the afternoon? Or maybe the plumber from earlier in the morning? And what about all those roofers in the neighborhood doing insurance repair after the hail storm? Cripes !!

In short, the dog might have, indeed, had his olfactory nerves firing in response to some unknown concentration of trained-on chemical (meth, weed, crack, gunpowder, C4), but that doesn't (or shouldn't in the mind of the judge cited) trigger the magic of Probably 'Cause.

RickD
03-06-2011, 15:17
Read the thread on what this subforum is here for.

I've read it. What's your issue?

k9medic
03-06-2011, 15:20
Very good post, sir.... I just have one issue, and that is giving any credibility to someone just because they have been a member of GT for some time, especially when that person has such a low post count.



Him being here so long indicates that his is not some new guy trying to troll cop talk. (he may be an old guy trying to troll...). I would never waste my time responding to a question like this if the guy didn't have a year or so under his belt here.

I guess could be said for me and my post count though - I see I'm just above 1000 posts in almost 11 years. He has 8K posts in 12 or so years.

The difference for me I guess is I rarely feel compelled to someones post unless I can add something relevant. In this case, my education and experience appear to beat out some newspaper reporters.

txleapd
03-06-2011, 15:29
I've read it. What's your issue?

"Folks, I did not create this forum to give people a place to ***** about cops, or to question the morality or legality of their practices. You might have a burning need to do so, but this is not the place for it." - Eric

RickD
03-06-2011, 15:45
It's a good thing I didn't do that.

Interesting thread, though, huh?

OFCJIM40
03-06-2011, 15:49
RickD, right now the issue with this topic is you really aren't presenting conversation pieces or providing data that hasn't already been debunked by us. I see you have written responses, but those responses won't yield additional debate because the topic has been answered thoroughly several times. If you choose to accept the answers that's up to you. But we can only go in circles so many times. There are about 18,000 K9 teams in America. Sure some won't be at full standards. Just like there are underperforming doctors, lawyers, investors and scientists. One bad example of one bad dog team can't be used as the foundation to build an entire argument against K9's.

lawman800
03-06-2011, 16:19
My first point was to start a dialog.

Now that I've heard others chime in, I'm wondering about the use of dogs to initiate more "direct" searches based on what appears to be over-sensitized animals (assuming the handler isn't coaxing Hans, so to speak).

71 out of 72 false hits. Okay, the hits might have been caused by a high school drug dealer dusting himself off in 2nd-Period English class. If that's the case, the dog doesn't work well with the background level of chemicals. This makes a higher than proper number of people subject to further search.

For example, that hit on the car door handle. The owner said that it was his druggy friend-of-the-family. But it might also have been the guy at Quickie-Lube. That hit on the front door... was that from the Postman who dropped off the Certified Receipt in the afternoon? Or maybe the plumber from earlier in the morning? And what about all those roofers in the neighborhood doing insurance repair after the hail storm? Cripes !!

In short, the dog might have, indeed, had his olfactory nerves firing in response to some unknown concentration of trained-on chemical (meth, weed, crack, gunpowder, C4), but that doesn't (or shouldn't in the mind of the judge cited) trigger the magic of Probably 'Cause.

So take it up with the courts or legislature. We are not the ones that made that determination that a dog hit constitutes PC.

RickD
03-06-2011, 16:42
...data that hasn't already been debunked by us.

Which studies debunk the data?

Sure some won't be at full standards.

What are those standards?

One bad example of one bad dog team can't be used as the foundation to build an entire argument against K9's.

There are several examples in that article (and sub links). I don't think the argument is against K9s, but the interpretation of their responses.

So take it up with the courts or legislature. We are not the ones that made that determination that a dog hit constitutes PC.

Haven't police argued in court that a K9 hit should constitute PC? I mean, before the first court case my guess is that there LEO staff, brass and/or unions arguing for the budgeting and the use of K9s to those in charge of the purse strings and then arguing in court that their K9s were reliable. I wonder if LEOs also conducted training for legal and judicial staff as well.

Here's an interesting case:

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=000&invol=03-923

OLY-M4gery
03-06-2011, 17:16
Do you know why they call it Probable Cause and not Absolute Certainty?

Sam Spade
03-06-2011, 17:28
Do you know why they call it Probable Cause and not Absolute Certainty?

And where, at least roughly, PC falls on a percentage scale?

lawman800
03-06-2011, 17:38
Haven't police argued in court that a K9 hit should constitute PC? I mean, before the first court case my guess is that there LEO staff, brass and/or unions arguing for the budgeting and the use of K9s to those in charge of the purse strings and then arguing in court that their K9s were reliable. I wonder if LEOs also conducted training for legal and judicial staff as well.

Here's an interesting case:

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=000&invol=03-923

So, did we make that determination or did the courts make that determination based on the arguments presented? What was the opposition view and why didn't it prevail?

Blaming us for this is the same as blaming the parties for making case law. So by your reasoning, let's blame Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. for Brown v. Board of Education and blame pregnant women for Roe v. Wade.

mntrpr
03-06-2011, 18:10
Go ahead and check the tire. Break it down. And when you find there is nothing there, here is a hand pump for you to air up my tire. Or you can pay for the tow truck and my time at $150 per hour.

(I don't drive a little car either. It is a 3/4 ton truck with off road tires. Hold a LOT of air.)

1. I can check your tire w/out deflating it
2. Good luck getting 150 bucks per hour after a K9 alert
3. You can keep your "hand" pump

TBO
03-06-2011, 18:24
:rofl:

txleapd
03-06-2011, 18:55
It's a good thing I didn't do that.

Interesting thread, though, huh?

That's exactly what you're doing. You're just doing it in a passive aggressive manner, and trying to pass it off as "simply conversation". You are trying to goad members here into an argument, in such a manner that you can play the innocent. It's the same manner and motive that got JSandi slapped down by this board's administration.

You have been refuted by those with firsthand knowledge and expertise. Yet continue to argue based solely on the biased news article of a liberal rag, written by a person who is well known as having a cop hating agenda.

You demand "proof" from people who have first hand experience, but rely on the skewed stats of people who have no clue. You have an obvious agenda, and your motives are transparent.

The last guy who did the same thing got his peepee smacked.... So good luck to you.

RickD
03-06-2011, 19:14
Sorry, a few forum anecdotes. Not responsive.

lawman800
03-06-2011, 21:27
What exactly are you looking for, Rick?

Hack
03-06-2011, 21:48
What exactly are you looking for, Rick?

My ? as well.

OFCJIM40
03-07-2011, 00:48
What exactly are you looking for, Rick?

Attention. And I think we've pretty much run out of it. My philosophy is now I deal with a lot of crap at work but at least I get paid for it. I go on forums like this as entertainment and maybe to help educate or guide those that might have questions. First and foremost my personal time is at a premium, and I'm not going to take more time to explain case law and procedure when I'm not on the clock. Feels more like work than enjoyment or good debate.

lawman800
03-07-2011, 03:36
IBTL.:whistling:

RussP
03-07-2011, 07:07
What exactly are you looking for, Rick?Excellent question, sir, but I doubt he'll answer directly.


He's moved on to http://glocktalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1325454 and http://glocktalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1325668.

actionshooter10
03-07-2011, 07:34
Which studies debunk the data?


You're citing one study, based, primarily, on one dog/handler from a historically suspect source. A newspaper's business is to sell papers. Look at that paper's demographic and figure out what type of stories they like to read.

There are decades of case law and studies showing a very high level of K9 detection accuracy in the studies and the field. I'm not going to do your homework for you. Google is your friend.

What are those standards?

USPCA, NPCA. Link to several state standards: http://www.policek9.com/html/standards.html The short answer is that there are many standards depending on locale. I'm sure your next argument will be that there should be national standards that are overseen by a branch of the government.

There are several examples in that article (and sub links). I don't think the argument is against K9s, but the interpretation of their responses.

If the dog alerts, ie. reacts in the manner he was trained to react when encountering the stimuli he was trained to recognise, there is no interpretation. It's readily apparent to anyone who has ever worked with a police dog.

Haven't police argued in court that a K9 hit should constitute PC? I mean, before the first court case my guess is that there LEO staff, brass and/or unions arguing for the budgeting and the use of K9s to those in charge of the purse strings and then arguing in court that their K9s were reliable. I wonder if LEOs also conducted training for legal and judicial staff as well.

Police don't make arguments in court. That would be the job of the district/state attorney. The court's have ruled, multiple times at all levels based on demonstratable and repeatably evidence, that a K9 hit is PC to search.

Here's an interesting case:

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=000&invol=03-923

It's a very interesting case where the US Supreme court struck down a Illinois court (strangely the same area the "study" you're referencing was conducted in) and held that the K9 hitting on the car was PC to search. I don't see how it helps your argument. You'll also notice that the Illinois court didn't reverse based on the dog's accuracy. That was never called into question. They reversed because they felt a traffic stop shouldn't be turned into an investigatory stop for other crimes.

Hope that helps.

k9medic
03-07-2011, 17:46
Sorry, a few forum anecdotes. Not responsive.

You can either take our (those with actual K9 experience) word for it or not. Simple as that.

Actually, on second thought... you could be on to something. What if I'm lying and just making it all up? Maybe I'm not a cop and never even had a K9. How would I prove that? Oh yeah, like this:

http://i173.photobucket.com/albums/w46/k9medic/Prince/IMG_0319.jpg
http://i173.photobucket.com/albums/w46/k9medic/Prince/IMG_0320.jpg
http://i173.photobucket.com/albums/w46/k9medic/Prince/IMG_0321.jpg
http://i173.photobucket.com/albums/w46/k9medic/Prince/IMG_0322.jpg
http://i173.photobucket.com/albums/w46/k9medic/Prince/IMG_0323.jpg
http://i173.photobucket.com/albums/w46/k9medic/Prince/IMG_0324.jpg

k9medic
03-07-2011, 17:47
http://i173.photobucket.com/albums/w46/k9medic/Prince/IMG_0325.jpg
http://i173.photobucket.com/albums/w46/k9medic/Prince/IMG_0326.jpg
http://i173.photobucket.com/albums/w46/k9medic/Prince/IMG_0327.jpg
http://i173.photobucket.com/albums/w46/k9medic/Prince/IMG_0328.jpg
http://i173.photobucket.com/albums/w46/k9medic/Prince/IMG_0329.jpg
http://i173.photobucket.com/albums/w46/k9medic/Prince/IMG_0330.jpg

RickD
03-07-2011, 18:02
What exactly are you looking for, Rick?

A discussion on the "Clever Hans Effect," for one.

RickD
03-07-2011, 18:04
Attention.

Attention? I there's more traffic on my FaceBook page than there is on CopTalk.

Speaking of that, I have to go post a pic of my new puppy !!

RickD
03-07-2011, 18:08
Maybe I'm not a cop and never even had a K9. How would I prove that? Oh yeah, like this:

I wonder if the guy whose dog falsely alerted 71 of 72 times had similar certification?

That's not the point. If a dog alerts multiple times based on physical cues from the handler or on trace amounts of chemical left by the tech at Discount Tire from yesterday, how can that rationally be a basis for escalation?

RickD
03-07-2011, 18:23
Hope that helps.

You're citing one study,

Use google. You'll find other studies and lots of instances worth at least the value of an anecdote on CopTalk.

Look at that paper's demographic and figure out what type of stories they like to read.

The Chicago Tribune is a conservative newspaper. And?

Google is your friend.

I know. I love Google !!

USPCA, NPCA.

Yeah, I saw those (using google). So, how did y'all rate on those standards? Was the testing particularly comprehensive for dog and handler?


If the dog alerts, ie. reacts in the manner he was trained to react when encountering the stimuli he was trained to recognise, there is no interpretation.

Isn't that kind of the zero-thought process found in the much-despised "Zero Tolerance" policies in public schools? If the dog alerts to minute (my-newt) traces of chemical left there hours ago by the UPS man, or meter reader, how can that be "zero-interpreted" to escalate.


It's readily apparent to anyone who has ever worked with a police dog.

Think that sub-population might be just a tad biased?

Police don't make arguments in court.

Yes they do, under questioning by defense and prosecution, no? They also make those same arguments in the press, in the Legislature, and with the City Manager (trying to raise funds for more units). Correct?

The court's have ruled,

Clearly they have... but they're really not all that knowledgeable, are they? Didn't judges take the word of Child Protection experts under Janet Reno when she was persecuting daycare centers for child abuse in Florida? Remember her "Miami Method?"

I don't see how it helps your argument.

I didn't post it to "help [my] argument." That you jump to that conclusion speaks volumes about your angle in this.

Thanks, though !! :wavey:

TBO
03-07-2011, 19:09
http://static.poponthepop.com/images/gallery/charlie-sheen-smile.jpg

AZLawDawg
03-07-2011, 20:24
You can either take our (those with actual K9 experience) word for it or not. Simple as that.

Actually, on second thought... you could be on to something. What if I'm lying and just making it all up? Maybe I'm not a cop and never even had a K9. How would I prove that? Oh yeah, like this:

http://i173.photobucket.com/albums/w46/k9medic/Prince/IMG_0319.jpg
http://i173.photobucket.com/albums/w46/k9medic/Prince/IMG_0320.jpg
http://i173.photobucket.com/albums/w46/k9medic/Prince/IMG_0321.jpg
http://i173.photobucket.com/albums/w46/k9medic/Prince/IMG_0322.jpg
http://i173.photobucket.com/albums/w46/k9medic/Prince/IMG_0323.jpg
http://i173.photobucket.com/albums/w46/k9medic/Prince/IMG_0324.jpg

Don't be silly, don't you know GT internet experience beats real world experience every time?

lawman800
03-07-2011, 21:13
Hmmm... I don't think anything we can present will make a difference. We should just leave it alone and revel in the fact that we are right under the law. Woot!

RussP
03-07-2011, 21:14
A discussion on the "Clever Hans Effect," for one.Well, perhaps you made a poor choice of venues for that discussion. The members here with practical field experience spoke overwhelmingly against your broad brush insinuations. Absent their agreement that the problems are systemic, you dismissed their contributions and ask for more discussion.

You might want to take your "discussion" to a more sympathetic environment.

Or, you can continue trolling here, if you want, for the comments you desire, but aren't going to get.

Dragoon44
03-07-2011, 21:34
RickD and this thread is the equivalent of an anti gunner posting a thread and linking to a story written by the Brady campaign. About how guns cause violence and are more dangerous to their owners than to Bad guys. And how more gun control is needed.

Savvy gun owners don't buy that crap regardless how many "experts" and "studies" are cited and quickly point out the agenda of such stories. And that the poster doesn't have a clue as to what he is talking about.

RickD would doubtless be one of the loudest to sneer at such an attempt but apparently he cannot fathom he is simply doing the same thing with a different topic.

Bill Lumberg
03-08-2011, 15:56
A detection dog is only as good as his handler and his training. A combination of known hides, blind hides, distractors, fresh product to run on, etc. are necessary for a dog to perform well. An experienced dog requires less training, but without fairly regular testing and training, both the handler and the dog will think they are far better than they actually are.

RickD
03-10-2011, 21:25
Sorry, been busy. Now, where were we?

Well, perhaps you made a poor choice of venues for that discussion.

The perfect venue on GT.

The members here with practical field experience spoke overwhelmingly against your broad brush insinuations.

They uttered anecdotes. Not good enough.

Pepper45
03-10-2011, 22:06
RickD and this thread is the equivalent of an anti gunner posting a thread and linking to a story written by the Brady campaign. About how guns cause violence and are more dangerous to their owners than to Bad guys. And how more gun control is needed.

Savvy gun owners don't buy that crap regardless how many "experts" and "studies" are cited and quickly point out the agenda of such stories. And that the poster doesn't have a clue as to what he is talking about.

RickD would doubtless be one of the loudest to sneer at such an attempt but apparently he cannot fathom he is simply doing the same thing with a different topic.
That was absolutely the best way to put that sentiment. I share it, but I fear that it was wasted on our friend Rick. Not sure about him, but some folks are convinced of the correctness of their opinion, and will find statistics and opinions to back it up, just like the Brady folks.

wprebeck
03-10-2011, 22:58
Sorry, been busy. Now, where were we?



The perfect venue on GT.



They uttered anecdotes. Not good enough.

And yet, I would daresay that they would meet the legal standard of "expert witness" in court, and be allowed to testify as such. Funny how that's not good enough for you, yet a "study" referenced in the media holds more weight than people who actually do the job. Hope you never need folks like that to testify on your behalf...by your logic, Mr. Ayoob (who is a member here) isn't qualified to offer expert opinions in court, since he doesn't rely on so-called "studies" that are biased to begin with, at best.

So, since you are relying on this document for your argument - what was the methodology used to obtain their results? What is the background of the person publishing the study? Is there an agenda (like the "studies" that "prove" MMGW is real)? In what publication was the study printed? Is it a peer-reviewed journal, like JAMA? Are there other studies that offer contradictory results? What about the combined experiences of K9 handlers throughout the world? With literally centuries of experience from thousands of different agencies and officers in dozens of countries, does that not count for something more than anecdotal evidence? You seem to suggest that thousands of officers, most of whom have never met, are colluding in a giant conspiracy. But, like the Brady Bunch and the Gore-ites, you'll grasp at.anything that fits your agenda. Which is widely known to those of us who've been around a while.

wprebeck
03-10-2011, 23:23
Rick,

I mean this as nicely as possible - if you really expect any of us to believe there's not an.agenda with both your articles (and you), you're an idiot. So, hopefully, you don't have that expectation.

Neither of the articles directly mentions specific studies. One gives an example of an "experiment" that sounds decidingly lacking in the use of either objectivity or the scientific method. For my money, I'll take the experiences of a few thousand officers who handle dogs daily, rather than one so-called experiment that shows no sign of actually using objective science to achieve results. Rather, it sounds more like a particular result was had in mind, and the results tailored to meet the expectations previously held.

The first article was even more lacking in objectivity. The ACLU was quoted throughout, and was throwing out the tired old race card they always play. You DO realize this is the.same group of folks that say its wrong to profile young Muslim males as potential terrorists, right?

Nah, the ACLU doesn't have a history of anti-police propaganda and lawsuits reflecting their views of how "unfair" and bigoted they believe LE to be. No agenda there at all....

So, no mention of a particular study. An "experiment" that seems to be dubiously conducted, at best. The ACLU crying about racism. The only numerical data provided by open records requests, and that was done by the very media.source publishing the article. Worse, that data provided no details on anything specific regarding the number of false positives and WHY the dog may have hit on that particular spot. Maybe the suspect had handled drugs prior to entering the vehicle. Maybe the handler was faking the hit, or cueing the dog. Maybe the car was regularly used to transport drugs, but wasn't being used in such a fashion for that particular stop. Fact is, any assertion could be true, but there's no hard data to prove ANY of them are more accurate than the next. But, your bias obviuosly doesn't prevent you from making a baseless assumption.

RickD
03-10-2011, 23:35
Savvy gun owners don't buy that crap regardless how many "experts" and "studies" are cited and quickly point out the agenda of such stories.

Savvy gun owners understand the difference between Kellerman and Kleck.

The former removed data that didn't conform to his intellectual need. The latter won Criminologist of the Year.

Your anecdotes, on the other hand, are more Brady-esque than you'd care to admit or even be able to comprehend.

RickD
03-10-2011, 23:51
Rick,

I mean this as nicely as possible - you're an idiot.

Is that how you play this game, homey?

Neither of the articles directly mentions specific studies.

The Tribune article itself analyzed the data and cites the Univ of Auburn researcher. For example:

The Tribune obtained and analyzed data from 2007 through 2009 collected by the state Department of Transportation to study racial profiling. But the data are incomplete. IDOT doesn't offer guidance on what exactly constitutes a drug dog alert, said spokesman Guy Tridgell, and most departments reported only a handful of searches based on alerts. At least two huge agencies — the Chicago Police Department and Illinois State Police — reported none.

The Tribune asked both agencies for their data, but state police could not provide a breakdown of how often their dog alerts led to seizures, and Chicago police did not provide any data.

That leaves figures only for suburban departments. Among those whose data are included, just six departments averaged at least 10 alerts per year, with the top three being the McHenry County sheriff's department, Naperville police and Romeoville police.

Romeoville did not respond to requests for comment, but Naperville and McHenry County authorities insisted there was no racial profiling and defended the performance of their dogs and handlers.

The McHenry County's sheriff's department had the most dog alerts, finding drugs or paraphernalia in 32 percent of 103 searches. In the eight searches on Hispanic drivers, officers reported finding drugs just once.

Since September 2008, Deputy Jeremy Bruketta has handled Sage, one of the McHenry County department's two drug-sniffing German shepherds. Officers sometimes come up empty-handed in searches of vehicles that clearly once contained drugs, he said, recalling a traffic stop in which a man, reeking of pot, had a marijuana stem stuck to his shirt but no drugs were found in the car.

In Naperville, 47 percent of searches turned up drugs or paraphernalia, though searches on Hispanic drivers turned up drugs in only one of 12 traffic stops, for a rate of 8 percent.

Officer Eddie Corneliusen, who handles Kairo, one of Naperville's two police dogs, also cited drug residue and said he's "confident that (the dog) is hitting on the odor of narcotics."

A federally sponsored advisory commission has recommended a set of best practices, though they are not backed by any legal mandate.

The state's data — in which drivers and officers aren't identified — show that the average false alert led to a stop lasting nearly a half-hour. One Crystal Lake search led to a three-hour stop for a Hispanic man in 2007. He was stopped for a license plate/registration violation, according to the data.

The limited court oversight and lack of uniform standards leave vast discrepancies in the skills of dog-and-officer teams, experts agreed.

Dog handlers can accidentally cue alerts from their dogs by leading them too slowly or too many times around a vehicle, said Lawrence Myers, an Auburn University professor who studies detector dogs. Myers pointed to the "Clever Hans" phenomenon in the early 1900s, named after a horse whose owner claimed the animal could read and do math before a psychologist determined the horse was actually responding to his master's unwitting cues.
"Is there a potential for handlers to cue these dogs to alert?" he asked. "The answer is a big, resounding yes."

Do you dispute any of this police-collected data and/or the learned professional opinion of Myers?

RickD
03-11-2011, 00:10
And yet, I would daresay that they would meet the legal standard of "expert witness" in court,

Do you remember all the expert witnesses who testified for Janet Reno's persecution of day care operators for "child abuse?" Or the expert testimony of arson experts who made gross assumptions?

http://reason.com/blog/2009/08/27/experts-denounce-forensic-evid

...yet a "study" referenced in the media holds more weight than people who actually do the job.

The former may be biased. I am quite certain (given responses here) that the latter would most likely tend in that direction.

...by your logic, Mr. Ayoob (who is a member here) isn't qualified to offer expert opinions[/quote in court, since he doesn't rely on so-called "studies"

Ayoob can testify, but his testimony can be vigorously challenged. You seem to be revolted by the concept.

And as to Ayoob not using research, he should sue you for defamation. A google on "Ayoob" +"Research" gives this:

"Ayoob discovered from extensive research dating as far back as World War I..."

You're really not very good at this, are you?

So, since you are relying on this document for your argument - what was the methodology used to obtain their results?

For the Tribune article, the term is "descriptive statistics" and "convenience sample" of the entire known data set ("universe").

What is the background of the person publishing the study?

As cited by the Tribune...

Dr. Paul Waggoner and Dr. Lawrence Myers of Auburn University's "Detector Dog Research Program."

Is there an agenda

There might be, but one would come up short in the ad-hominem attach vs a careful study of the data.

In what publication was the study printed? Is it a peer-reviewed journal, like JAMA?

This is argument by authority. Allow me to clue you... you know who Dr. Arthur Kellerman is, right? He's the guy who famously wrote "A gun in the home is X times more likely to kill a family member... yadda yadda."

He was published at least three times (that I read) in a peer-reviewed journal known fondly as NEJM (or the New England Journal of Medicine). Once in 1986, again in 1993, and I think the other was 1996. All crap. All "peer-reviewed."

Are there other studies that offer contradictory results?

I haven't seen any. Have you?

What about the combined experiences of K9 handlers throughout the world?

The only people we've heard from here are a few GT Cop Talkers. I'm unaware of a study that compiles the anecdote of self-interested dog handlers.

You seem to suggest that thousands of officers, most of whom have never met, are colluding in a giant conspiracy.

There *might* be an argument for collusion, if, in fact, they ever got together and compiled their anecdotes, but so far, no effort has been made.

lawman800
03-11-2011, 00:59
RickD is persistent, I give him that.

wprebeck
03-11-2011, 02:31
RickD is persistent, I give him that.

Essentially, if the study supports his bias, its valid. If it doesn't, its anecdotal or a crap piece of work.

He IS consistent, though....

Rick - how many false positives involved vehicles that had been used to transport drugs prior to the stop, but were not at the time of the stop that was included in the study? Ever hear of the scientific method, control.groups, and reducing the amount of variables in the study? Im fairly sure that if the occupant(s) of the vehicle were previously, but not currently at the time of.the stop, involved in the illicit drug trade...they wouldn't just blurt it out.

Of course, that opinion is likely invalid with you - being that its based on eleven years of personal...I mean, anecdotal...experiences I've had during my career in dealing with criminals.

lawman800
03-11-2011, 02:37
Essentially, if the study supports his bias, its valid. If it doesn't, its anecdotal or a crap piece of work.

He IS consistent, though....

Rick - how many false positives involved vehicles that had been used to transport drugs prior to the stop, but were not at the time of the stop that was included in the study? Ever hear of the scientific method, control.groups, and reducing the amount of variables in the study? Im fairly sure that if the occupant(s) of the vehicle were previously, but not currently at the time of.the stop, involved in the illicit drug trade...they wouldn't just blurt it out.

Of course, that opinion is likely invalid with you - being that its based on eleven years of personal...I mean, anecdotal...experiences I've had during my career in dealing with criminals.

Well... on something that is not readily quantifiable... such as police work, you can have case study upon case study but in the end, it's a pile of anecdotes which show patterns and you extrapolate what you can from that.

Only when you have a pure science like physics can you really quantify all results and have solid information for theories and scientific fact. As long as you mix science in with living creatures who have to process the science... such as chemistry, biochemistry, and biology coming together when a canine smells a chemical which triggers specific biochemical reactions which go to receptors which then has to be interpreted and acted upon by the canine brain... you're not going to get pure scientific results and output of data like you would when you just measure how much a given volume of water will become the equivalent volume when converted to a gaseous state.

RickD
03-11-2011, 16:39
Essentially, if the study supports his bias, its valid. If it doesn't, its anecdotal or a crap piece of work.

Which study runs counter?

but were not at the time of the stop that was included in the study?

Which study? If you're talking the Tribune story, they used police data, or tried to... which was a little futile given the state of data collected by agencies. Have you heard the recent story about Phoenix PD drawing "interesting" conclusions from home invasion stats?

Im fairly sure that if the occupant(s)

Interesting speculation. I like to remove unsupported (read) speculation from our annual reports.

...being that its based on eleven years of personal...I mean, anecdotal...experiences I've had during my career in dealing with criminals.

Yes, I am well aware of interest groups thinking things are one way based on who walks in and out of their offices until the community data whacks them up side the head.

k9medic
03-11-2011, 18:11
Interesting that Rick refers to the OODA loop in his signature. It appears that we have gotten ourselves in the middle of his - undoubtedly what he wanted in the first place.

Boyd would be proud.

TBO
02-06-2012, 20:34
http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_l6jl3gxw931qc9stu.jpg

Tiro Fijo
02-06-2012, 20:51
How does a dog track a person?

http://i368.photobucket.com/albums/oo129/Boge_1960/Jokes/Bloodhound.jpg

:animlol::animlol:

Bren
02-08-2012, 13:15
I've never run a dog, but my experience has been the same as k9medic - either we find something, or we find evidence that something was there (packaging, admissions, etc).

The dog is not infalliable. Period. They are, however, very, very good. Keep in mind that the dog simply is not going to smell a single marijuana seed, or a little bag of meth stuffed inside of the car from outside of the car. The dog is going to smell the odor where people who were using the drug touched. Larger quantities? Yeah, they're probably going to get it.

My brother is a K9 officer and I've been with him during training, certification and real searches. He can pretty much always find the evidence, or find evidence of where it was.

I wonder if these people skew the results of real life searches by calling any search that doesn't recover actual drugs a false hit? That would not be true, but it would be just like the liberal academic types who usually come up with this stuff.

The fact that the dog hits on a car and no "drugs or paraphernalia" is a long, long way from proving the dog was wrong. It may just prove the dog's sense of smell is way too good for this job. An example would be that my cousin, when he worked K9, recovered a gym bag with $100,000 plus in cash in it from an unemployed parolee, but found no drugs or paraphernalia other than very slight residue in the bag.

steveksux
02-08-2012, 20:43
Backed university police on a stop last night. They smelled weed in the vehicle, and the officer thought "scent alone wasn't enough" (his words, not mine), so they requested a dog (isn't that "scent alone???") that hit on the car. Then, they found weed.

One of the turds in the car insisted (and continued to insist) that the handler had tapped on the vehicle to make the dog "hit"? He had no rebuttal to my pointing out that there had indeed been weed in the car.:rofl: So the theory was that the handler had to tip the dog off to alert on the weed that the Uni cop could smell all by himself...

Makes sense to me. Humans sense of smell is hundreds of times more sensitive than dogs after all... :tongueout::rofl:

Randy

steveksux
02-08-2012, 20:46
is there such a thing as a residual scent?

can you put some dope in a car for 30 minutes, take it out and 10 minutes later have a dog hit on the spot the dope was?

How does a dog track a person?

GPS?

Randy

DoogieHowser
02-09-2012, 08:11
http://i143.photobucket.com/albums/r136/Romulus32/ibtl.gif

merlynusn
02-09-2012, 08:42
When we get a felony amount of narcotics off a dog, we are required to put the K9's certification in with our packet for the DA. This eliminates any problems. My last one was 3 ounces of cocaine. Not a whole lot, but enough for me. The dog had a 100% call rate on a double blind testing system done just a few months previously. That dog is an awesome dog.

There are others that aren't as good. Again, each dog has to be certified by the State either every year or every two years. (I'm not a K9 handler).

Bill Lumberg
02-09-2012, 09:28
Only training using both known and unknown hides will minimize or prevent this. Work isn't training. You have to train even after the dog is established and working.

CAcop
02-09-2012, 09:57
Only training using both known and unknown hides will minimize or prevent this. Work isn't training. You have to train even after the dog is established and working.

Our K9 handlers train every other week. It is actually built into their schedule.

With as many lawyers and K9s in this state you would think by now one defense attonrey would be able to prove it. The reason why they can't is simple. Training.

Training is the most important thing we do. It keeps us out of court, it keeps us from getting sued, it keeps us alive.

ancient_serpent
02-09-2012, 12:54
I work around K9 handlers enough to realize the dogs are accurate. Seen it time and time again, explosive and drugs dogs both.
Cues from the handler don't help when testing, because they don't know where the scent marker is.
YMMV.

series1811
02-09-2012, 14:21
Savvy gun owners understand the difference between Kellerman and Kleck.

The former removed data that didn't conform to his intellectual need. The latter won Criminologist of the Year.

Your anecdotes, on the other hand, are more Brady-esque than you'd care to admit or even be able to comprehend.

I love it when someone tells me I didn't see what I saw over twenty five years, and then quotes a study to show me what I really saw.

The only people who discount experience are those who have none.

Dragoon44
02-09-2012, 14:39
I love it when someone tells me I didn't see what I saw over twenty five years, and then quotes a study to show me what I really saw.

The only people who discount experience are those who have none.

I was thinking of a counter thread.

Drugs and the not very clever troll effect.

:rofl:

series1811
02-09-2012, 14:47
I was thinking of a counter thread.

Drugs and the not very clever troll effect.

:rofl:

Like flies to honey. (or maybe like hookers to crack). :supergrin:

Dragoon44
02-09-2012, 14:55
By the way, I am shamelessly stealing this for my next sig line.

The only people who discount experience are those who have none.

:supergrin::wavey:

Bill Lumberg
02-09-2012, 15:50
This. Our K9 handlers train every other week. It is actually built into their schedule.

With as many lawyers and K9s in this state you would think by now one defense attonrey would be able to prove it. The reason why they can't is simple. Training.

Training is the most important thing we do. It keeps us out of court, it keeps us from getting sued, it keeps us alive.

Hack
02-09-2012, 22:05
Hum de dum de dum. "The beat goes on."