My School-based narcotic K-9 is scent imprinted with real odors associated with marijuana, cocaine (crack/ powder), MDMA, Methamphetamine and heroin. Additionally his trainer used SIGMA psuedo drugs in his imprint training. Since his Sept. 2006 assignement with me, I have used scented towels with real narc odors and also psuedo odors when not training on real narcs with our narc K-9 (when he is available). My narc K-9 handler believes psuedo is not vaild & affects the K-9. He also believes only real narc odors are accepted in court proceedings. I have told him if I do not use my training aids, then I have nothing because I am dependent on him for the real odors (another DEA license is out of the question).

My questions are;
1) Is SIGMA psuedo odors that much different from real narc odors, and can both be used together in documenting for court proceedings?
2) Does it affect the K-9 when both psuedos and real narc odors are used in training?
3) Is it proper to document the psuedo odors in a training logbook when real narc odors are also used, and can they work in together in harmony for court proceedings?

Wayne,

It would be a mistake to not indicate that you train with pseudo. Bottom line is you can never go wrong in telling the truth.

The way I always approached this issue is that is one DOPER got away on a techical because of a told the truth then there would be 1,000 others dummies standing in line to get caught. So who cares???

In regard to the question on pseudo - if your dog is trained on pseuo and it ALWAYS indicates on real drugs, and your training records reflect that you use REAL DRUGS in your training then where is the problem? If you use your dog and find dope - and that dope tests positive then your training methods are valid.

With that said if you are a law enforcement officer your department should have the DEA liscense. Then you both have authorization to have the drugs.

Your current K9 handler is mistaken - he needs more training.

I am no expert but have a certified Narcotics detection K9, and went through the handlers' certification testing/training along with the police K9 handlers in the school. In school we used real drugs, and real drugs were used for testing/certifying. Anytime I train with K9 officers, I train with real drugs. My dog always indicates the real drugs the same as she indicates the pseudo that I use at home. I am not LE and do not have a DEA liscense, so I do not have access to real drugs except when I'm training with LE. So I use pseudo, and my dog indicates the same either way. I think it is most important that you don't lie about training on pseudo, but be sure to mention that your dog trains on real, and was certified on real.

molly

Thanks for the advice. I am a LEO and have certification. I also am documenting in a logbook both psuedo and real when each is used in that day's training.

1) So is it safe to say that if both are used in imprinting and ongoing training, then the K-9 can not be adversely affected by using psuedo more often than real narcs?

2) Has anyone been to court when psuedo training was questioned (I realize lawyers question all training)?

3) Also has anyone heard that SIGMA psuedo scents have atleast 8 of the same molecular chemical components as real narcs and this is why they are effective in training? So far my K-9 has located real narcs whether I train with either psuedo and/or real.

Wayne,
I have heard there are certain inactive components from the real stuff found in sigma, whether it's true don't know for sure. But that does seem to be the word on the street huh.

I raised and trained a dog and sold him to a department in North Carolina. He was raised on psuedo, never saw the real stuff until certification and aced it, that dog went on to be the top dog with his handler in their handler certification class. From what I'm told by his handler, the department absolutely LOOOOOVES him. The chief has nominated him for police officer of the year for their department, I'm told if he wins he will be the first rookie to ever get it

I recently put in for a DEA and ATF license, but have been having strong doubts about whether it's worth it to even use it. If the dogs are hitting just as good and as long as they get certified on the real stuff, where is the problem. Only difference is you don't have a 3rd of the hassle as using real.

Before I comment here I want to make it clear that it is always better to train with real drugs Vs Pseudo.

But to answer the question above - I have tesitified in federal court and state court on narcotic's K9 cases. I have also been cross examined by defense on the use of pseudo. They have never been able to make a point on its use in training.

Be honest in your training records, be sure and indicate the problems that come up in training then address those problems in later training to show what you did to overcome them and you will not have a problem

The only problem you will have using pseudo is not telling the truth about it (I know you are documenting-just speaking hypothetically here). If it isn't properly documented, or worse, if the document trail seems to fudge between real and pseudo, the defense may get mileage out of a witness character or bias issue, which you definitely do NOT want.

The central question in answering a PC challenge in K9 deployment is whether what happened was REASONABLE. Is it reasonable to accept the testimony of an expert that a dog trained on pseudo can alert properly to the presence of real drugs? Yes. Unless there's a record or pattern of your dog hitting false positives, it is very unlikely that you will have an issue.

That said, my money's with Ed-real is better. If I'm prosecuting the case, I'd just as soon not have this as an issue. (I think I've commented to that effect on this board a long time ago.) I know it's a hassle to weigh and certify, etc., but it comes with the territory.

I have heard the pseudo vs. real argument for years and years. Here is the meat and potatoes of it. I look and ask for cases where the use of pseudo has caused the dog to be considered untrustworthy and fails to be ocnsidered as PC for the issuance of a warrant or for a warrantless search under various exceptions.
Just can't find one. Oh, I have heard a bunch of posturing by people in the field about how it is not controlled substance so you can't use it or your dog will not be a qualified detector dog etc.
But, it has been in use by the US Customs for years and years. That's what they issue their handlers for maintenence. Various other large dog training organizations both government and provate have used it.
Now NO ONE I am aware of tests with it.
I use it during the basic traiing of the dogs and for some demos (some people get stupid when you do a school demo and bring narcs into a school to do it, I guess they feel like drugs are a contagious desease that will float through the air and make their kid an adict). Once we near the end of training the dogs don't see pseudo any more. Testing and maintenence training are done with the real stuff.
People who make a big deal of it show that they do not understand the concept of probable cause. It is not proof. It is part of a sentence that coninous with probable cause to believe......... it does say proof of a crime.
That is why all our evidence found gets a field test followed by being sent to a lab for testing. If a k-9 indication were the equivilant of a labratory test then why would we bother to send the evidence to a lab???
Is real better??? Intutitively we say yes. In regards to the legal issues we have nothing to say that it is not equivilant, not a single appealate court has rules on it, not one.

Kevin and Ed,
Thanks for your input. I was really intrested in hearing what you guys had to say. I'v been having this talk with some friends and this was a topic of discussion for us for the last two weeks now. It's amazing that Kevin said that about the customs, because just today I was talking to a Border K9 officer I know on the phone and he said they, and customs train for maintenance regularly on psuedo and real, but that it's not just real all the time. GREAT TOPIC!
~CHRIS DUHON

Good info from all relating to my initial question. I believe your training records for court is what is important in whether you use the combination of psuedo and real for training.

I trained yesterday with our narc handlers and my K-9 hit on the real narcs. The day before my K-9 and I used psuedos for training along with a marijuana pipe with burnted residual that was confiscated from a student at my High School.

Keep the info coming relating to psuedo vs. real. Also any documentation that is useful. I sent an e-mail to SIGMA Psuedo for their chemical background on their products (i.e. if it has the same chemical compounds as real narcs?), but have not heard anything yet. I will post their findings when available.

Det. Wayne Weidenbacher, SRO K-9