Police Dog Home Page
Police Dog Home Page
  • Home
  • About
  • Our Team
  • Services
  • Courses
    • K9 Supervisors Program
    • K9 Conference
    • Advanced Tactical K9
    • Problem Solving/Muzzle
    • Tracking
    • Hosting Guide
  • K9 Administrators
    • Agency Liability
    • Basic Training Syllabus
    • Bite Out Of Crime
    • City Risk Management
    • K9 Records Management
    • K9 Unit Administration
    • PSD - Asset or Liablity?
    • Vendor vs Agency Training
  • Archives
  • Articles
  • Resources
    • Resources
    • Bark & Hold Study
    • Reward Based K9 Training
  • Contact Us
  • More
    • Home
    • About
    • Our Team
    • Services
    • Courses
      • K9 Supervisors Program
      • K9 Conference
      • Advanced Tactical K9
      • Problem Solving/Muzzle
      • Tracking
      • Hosting Guide
    • K9 Administrators
      • Agency Liability
      • Basic Training Syllabus
      • Bite Out Of Crime
      • City Risk Management
      • K9 Records Management
      • K9 Unit Administration
      • PSD - Asset or Liablity?
      • Vendor vs Agency Training
    • Archives
    • Articles
    • Resources
      • Resources
      • Bark & Hold Study
      • Reward Based K9 Training
    • Contact Us
  • Home
  • About
  • Our Team
  • Services
  • Courses
  • K9 Administrators
  • Archives
  • Articles
  • Resources
  • Contact Us

K9 Records Management by R.S. Eden

Additional Information

 Volumes can be written on proper report  writing and how  important it is to ensure reports are written in a  clear and concise  manner that include all the facts of either training  or actual incident  deployment. It is vital that whatever record keeping  program or system  you have in place for your agency, whether it is  KATS, another software  product or in some agencies, internal paperwork,  that you don’t invite  scrutiny because of poorly prepared reports or  by capturing data that is  potentially damaging.
 

This  doesn’t infer that you capture data  selectively. On the contrary it is  imperative that you capture data  thoroughly and honestly.  However, it  is unwise to capture information that is unnecessary or that can be  misinterpreted through improper  design.

Before KATS was ever created, every agency maintained their records with hand  written or typed reports.  As technology has advanced  we have had the  ability to improve our ability to clarify the  information we collect  and disseminate.  As technology has advanced, so  have our nations’  laws, our training techniques as well as our policies  and procedures.

In  the years of developing KATS in the past, and even currently, we have  seen copies of hand written records as well as other record keeping  software programs that actively score false alerts on detection  deployments.  In some cases, they go as far as to score and valuate K9  reliability on live deployment alerts, and produce extensive reports   based on the number of alerts the dog has on live deployments where no substance was found compared to the number of alerts the dog has where   the product being searched for was found. Why would you continue to   produce this information and disseminate it to be questioned in the courts when the issue of false alerts has been struck down by the   Supreme Court?  To do so can only bring confusion during a case. There   is no need to collect the information, yet by doing so, you open  yourself to more scrutiny. This can easily be avoided by simply   following what is required by case law.
Florida  v. Harris (Case Shown Below)  addresses both false alerts, and K-9  reliability. Reliability can only come from training and  certification.  In fact the US Supreme Court states,

"Even  if a drug detection dog has not completed a formal certification   program, the court can presume, subject to any conflicting evidence   offered, that the dog’s alert provides probable cause to search, if the   dog has recently and successfully completed a training program that  evaluated his proficiency in locating drugs."

Some electronic K9 record keeping  programs have in the past also created  formulas that are designed to produce reports that demonstrate the  “scent threshold” of a dog by  inputting specific information during  training that calculates that supposed threshold.

This has created unnecessary complications for  agencies that seemingly  track this information and then subsequently  must try to explain it in  court and how it relates to the reliability of  the dog.  In reality,  “scent threshold” can only be properly determined  by quantifying  studies in scientifically controlled environments.  To  infer that in  general K9 training you can determine a “scent threshold”  on a dog is  false, and when types of reports such as this become part of  the  training records released to a defense attorney or are introduced  into  court, it only creates unnecessary confusion, serves no legitimate   purpose and it will be challenged.  When issues such as this occur, it   has the potential to discredit the officer and the agency, and to set   bad precedent which is something the K9 industry can ill afford. 

It is important to remember that should bad case law result from flaws  such as  this, even by a single agency, it can affect the entire  industry across  the country. Therefore, it is imperative that record  keeping and its subsequent use in the courts is efficient, absolutely  correct in detail  and that it provides the appropriate information.

Another issue of concern is training records that show a dog  is successful  100% of the time during training profiles.  In the past,  this type of  record keeping back in the era of the 1990’s was common.  This stemmed  from the philosophies of trainers who taught that you  always ensured  the success of the dog in every training profile. Every  track, every  search, virtually every exercise was set up in such a way  that the dog  always succeeded one way or another.  In doing so, you would record that  the dog was 100% no matter what exercise or training  profile was being  performed.

It did not take long before training records that showed the dog was performing at 100% efficiency were being questioned by the  courts.  There is no such thing as a perfect dog and over time these  claims were  being questioned, raising doubts about the value of these  training  records and subsequently the reality of the true abilities of  the dogs.

As  a result of challenges to the credibility of the records  being kept  that showed 100% proficiency levels, it was learned that it  is wise to  document any training issues that occur and the steps taken  to resolve  those issues, along with the subsequent results. This  approach provides  records that provide credibility and demonstrates that  the agency is  taking the appropriate steps to maintain high standards  of performance.
Whether  you are using in house  software, hand written documentation or  commercial level products to track your training, ensure that you  record your training events clearly  and honestly. Include all training  problems or failures on the part of  the dog, as well as the steps to  correct any deficit or under  performance in training.  This gives you  credibility and provides  performance standards that shows your training  is up to standard and how  training deficits are handled quickly and efficiently to maintain certification capability.  

If you have a record keeping system that is  showing 100% performance in  any given training profile, serious  consideration needs to be made to  consider making changes to how you  record your training performance.   In the end, failing to do so may put  your unit credibility at risk.

Florida v. Harris 
U.S. Supreme Court
133 S.Ct. 1050 – February 19, 2013
The   Court unanimously held that the Florida Supreme Court erred when it   “created a strict evidentiary checklist” a state must satisfy to   establish that an alert by a drug-detection dog provided probable cause   to search a car. The Court concluded that “if a bona fide organization has certified a dog after testing his reliability in a controlled  setting” (or “if the dog has recently and successfully completed a   training program”), “a court can presume (subject to any conflicting   evidence offered) that the dog’s alert provides probable cause to   search.” 


The   Court criticized the Florida state court for treating  field-performance  records as more probative of the dog’s reliability  than its training  and certification records, which stem from controlled  environments, and  concluded that evidence of training, even without  certification, can be  sufficient to establish reliability. 


The Court emphasized  that the defendant must have the opportunity to  challenge the dog’s  reliability by cross-examining the handler and  presenting expert  evidence.

A Police officer has probable cause to conduct search when facts   available to him would warrant person of reasonable caution in belief   that contraband or evidence of crime is present.
Test   for probable cause to search is not reducible to precise definition or   quantification, and finely tuned standards such as proof beyond   reasonable doubt or by preponderance of evidence have no place in   probable-cause decision. All that is required is the kind of “fair   probability” on which reasonable and prudent people, not legal   technicians, act.

To establish that a drug detection dog is reliable, the State need not, in every case, present exhaustive set of records, including log of dog’s  performance in the field. That approach would be inconsistent with  flexible, common-sense standard of probable cause. Dog’s  field  performances are not the gold standard in evidence, when in most  cases  they have relatively limited import. Errors may abound in such  records.
Evidence   of a drug detection dog’s satisfactory performance in certification or   training program can itself provide sufficient reason to trust his   alert. If a bona fide organization has certified a dog after testing  his  reliability in controlled setting, court can presume, subject to  any  conflicting evidence offered, that dog’s alert provides probable  cause  to search.

Even if a drug detection dog has not completed a formal certification   program, the court can presume, subject to any conflicting evidence   offered, that dog’s alert provides probable cause to search, if dog has recently and successfully completed training program that evaluated  his  proficiency in locating drugs.
Defendant   must have opportunity to challenge evidence of drug detection dog’s   reliability, whether by cross-examining testifying officer or by   introducing his own fact or expert witnesses.  If a dog on patrol fails to alert to a car containing drugs, the mistake usually will go undetected because the officer will not initiate a search. 

Field  data thus may not capture a dog’s false negatives. Conversely (and more   relevant here), if the dog alerts to a car in which the officer finds  no  narcotics, the dog may not have made a mistake at all. The dog may  have  detected substances that were too well hidden or present in  quantities  too small for the officer to locate.

Or the dog may have smelled the residual odor of drugs previously in the  vehicle or on the driver’s person. Field  data thus may markedly  overstate a dog’s real false positives.

By contrast, those inaccuracies—in either direction—do not taint records  of  a dog’s performance in standard training and certification settings.   There, the designers of an assessment know where drugs are hidden and   where they are not—and so where a dog should alert and where he should   not. The better measure of a dog’s reliability thus comes away from the   field, in controlled testing environments.

Harris cooked and used methamphetamine on a regular basis; so as Handler Wheetley later surmised, K-9 Aldo likely responded to odors that Harris had transferred to the driver’s-side door handle of his truck. A  well-trained drug-detection dog should alert to such odors; his response  to them might appear a mistake, but in fact is not.


The K9 Activity Tracking System (KATS) RMS is available through the KATS Platinum Home Page.

Copyright © Eden K9 Group - All Rights Reserved.

  • Home
  • About
  • Our Team
  • Services
  • Archives
  • Articles

This website uses cookies.

We use cookies to analyze website traffic and optimize your website experience. By accepting our use of cookies, your data will be aggregated with all other user data.

DeclineAccept