Genie Hilton wrote 08/27/2008 10:07 PM media belief in alert confirmation #207631 - 08/27/2008 10:07 PM
Genie Hilton Webboard User Reg: 05-27-2008 Posts: 55 Loc: Texas Offline	From working NNDDA certified drug dogs, I know that there is legal precedent acknowledging a dog's ability to locate contraband. Why is it then that no one seemed to believe the cadaver dogs when they alerted on the mom's trunk in the Caylee Anthony case in FL?? Why did it take "confirming" lab testing to make people believe it?? Testing reveals decomp in missing toddler case Prevention/ Intervention/ Education http://www.childrens-crisis-prevention.org/index.html
Top
Carol Boche wrote 08/30/2008 08:14 AM Re: media belief in alert confirmation [Re: Genie Hilton ] #207913 - 08/30/2008 08:14 AM
Carol Boche Webboard User Reg: 10-30-2005 Posts: 4531 Loc: South Dakota, USA Offline	mmmmm, there is a gal named Sandy Anderson, who just got out of prison about a year or so ago. She was in for planting cadaver. This woman was FAMOUS in the dog world. One man went to prison, because she and her dog Eagle found a bloody saw blade in the basement after the wife went missing. Not sure why the blood was not tested at first, but when they finally tested it......it was Sandys blood herself on the knife. Many, many, many things like that she was caught doing. If you go to Tru TV and click on "The Investigators" it is the "Bones of Contention" Episode that I think can be watched online. So, therefore, we cadaver dog handlers have a serious job of proving that we are NOT all Sandy Anderson. Not the only reason, but definitely one of the biggies. Until The Tale of the Lioness is told, the Story will Always Glorfy the Hunter
Top
Lynne Barrows wrote 08/30/2008 08:20 AM Re: media belief in alert confirmation [Re: Genie Hilton ] #207914 - 08/30/2008 08:20 AM
Lynne Barrows Webboard User Reg: 09-22-2007 Posts: 2531 Loc: S. Florida Offline	Quote: genie hilton From working NNDDA certified drug dogs, I know that there is legal precedent acknowledging a dog's ability to locate contraband. Why is it then that no one seemed to believe the cadaver dogs when they alerted on the mom's trunk in the Caylee Anthony case in FL?? Why did it take "confirming" lab testing to make people believe it?? Testing reveals decomp in missing toddler case I'm guessing that investigators did believe what the dogs found; but they still need concrete evidence to put this lady away. The dogs alerted on scent, but nothing incriminating was actually found in the trunk. They just took her into custody this morning (again) on an unrelated charge, FYI...
Top
Carol Boche wrote 08/30/2008 08:29 AM Re: media belief in alert confirmation [Re: Lynne Barrows ] #207915 - 08/30/2008 08:29 AM
Carol Boche Webboard User Reg: 10-30-2005 Posts: 4531 Loc: South Dakota, USA Offline	I should have added to my above post. Lynne is correct in that absolutely testing needs to be done to verify the evidence found by the dog. Experts on the dog will probably be brought in to testify. This is why it is VITAL that we, as handlers (in any discipline) be diligent in our training and keeping training logs. Until The Tale of the Lioness is told, the Story will Always Glorfy the Hunter
Top
David C.Frost wrote 08/30/2008 08:45 AM Re: media belief in alert confirmation [Re: Genie Hilton ] #207916 - 08/30/2008 08:45 AM
David C.Frost Webboard User Reg: 01-23-2002 Posts: 1204 Loc: Nashville, TN Offline	Quote: genie hilton From working NNDDA certified drug dogs, I know that there is legal precedent acknowledging a dog's ability to locate contraband. Why is it then that no one seemed to believe the cadaver dogs when they alerted on the mom's trunk in the Caylee Anthony case in FL?? Why did it take "confirming" lab testing to make people believe it?? Testing reveals decomp in missing toddler case With drug dogs you still have confirmation. If drugs are found, they still go to a lab for positive identification. I'm not aware of any arrests made just because a dog "alerted", when nothing was found. The challenge to drug dog, in my experience as a witness in both state and federal court, is the proficiency of the dog. Not whether or not drugs were present. As Carol stated; the single most important action we can take is complete, accurate training records. I've had court cases (more than one) that upon presenting the training records during discovery, the defense decided to not challenge the dog. The determination was made strictly on the strength and the method the training records were produced. That includes a federal case by the gentleman from Texas everyone despised so much. (God rest his soul). DFrost Any behavior that is reinforced is more likely to occur again.
Top
Genie Hilton wrote 08/30/2008 09:07 AM Re: media belief in alert confirmation [Re: David C.Frost ] #207917 - 08/30/2008 09:07 AM
Genie Hilton Webboard User Reg: 05-27-2008 Posts: 55 Loc: Texas Offline	+++++ If you go to Tru TV and click on "The Investigators" it is the "Bones of Contention" Episode that I think can be watched online. +++++ As soon as I read that, I remember watching that story. I guess I was just mad and popped off before thinking about it. Not a good idea before posting. Sorry. But, yall gave me some good reminders, so I appreciate it. Training records are so very important. The master trainers we use to recertify with pound into everyone's head that we all need to do an excellent job in everything we do so that we don't give legal precedent to doubt canine detection work. Prevention/ Intervention/ Education http://www.childrens-crisis-prevention.org/index.html
Top
randy allen wrote 08/30/2008 09:12 AM Re: media belief in alert confirmation [Re: David C.Frost ] #207918 - 08/30/2008 09:12 AM
randy allen Webboard User Reg: 08-30-2007 Posts: 3283 Loc: Offline	If a layperson may chime in, I,ve always thought that an alert made by a dog only gave probable cause for search or for a written warrant depending on the circumstances. And the case builds from there. Tracking evidence, ie trailing a suspect falls into a whole other catagory doesn't it? In the case of the missing girl, for the last few weeks I think they've been analyzing the forensic evidence from the initial alert have'nt they? If I'm not learning, I'm not paying attention. Randy
Top
Carol Boche wrote 08/30/2008 09:37 AM Re: media belief in alert confirmation [Re: randy allen ] #207922 - 08/30/2008 09:37 AM
Carol Boche Webboard User Reg: 10-30-2005 Posts: 4531 Loc: South Dakota, USA Offline	Quote: randy allen If a layperson may chime in, I,ve always thought that an alert made by a dog only gave probable cause for search or for a written warrant depending on the circumstances. And the case builds from there. Tracking evidence, ie trailing a suspect falls into a whole other catagory doesn't it? Absolutely. I am leaving to train right now, but I will definitely elaborate when I get back tonight. Until The Tale of the Lioness is told, the Story will Always Glorfy the Hunter
Top
randy allen wrote 08/30/2008 10:53 AM Re: media belief in alert confirmation [Re: Carol Boche ] #207927 - 08/30/2008 10:53 AM
randy allen Webboard User Reg: 08-30-2007 Posts: 3283 Loc: Offline	Hmmmm, after rereading the posts and giving it some thought, I think I can see that my questions were a little off topic. After all, without the proper training and the documentation of proven on going training. One could say the dog was just reading a post card a previous dog had left. So then there is no probable cause. No probable cause equals no evidence. I get a little more on target this time? If I'm not learning, I'm not paying attention. Randy
Top
David C.Frost wrote 08/30/2008 12:23 PM Re: media belief in alert confirmation [Re: randy allen ] #207939 - 08/30/2008 12:23 PM
David C.Frost Webboard User Reg: 01-23-2002 Posts: 1204 Loc: Nashville, TN Offline	A response is probable cause. Probable cause is a significant event in police work. In certain situations it relieves an officer of the necessity of obtaining a search warrant. In other circumstances it can be the basis of a search warrant. To that end, the proficiency of a dog is taken very seriously. DFrost Any behavior that is reinforced is more likely to occur again.
Top

Previous Topic

Index

Next Topic

Page 1 of 4 123>>Last

When purchasing any product from Leerburg Enterprises, Inc. it is understood that any and all products sold by Leerburg Enterprises, Inc. are sold in Dunn County Wisconsin, USA. Any and all legal action taken against Leerburg Enterprises, Inc. concerning the purchase or use of these products must take place in Dunn County, Wisconsin. If customers do not agree with this policy they should not purchase Leerburg Ent. Inc. products.

Dog Training is never without risk of injury. Do not use any of the products sold by Leerburg Enterprises, Inc. without consulting a local professional. The training methods shown in the Leerburg Ent. Inc. DVD’s are meant to be used with a local instructor or trainer. Leerburg Enterprises, Inc. cannot be held responsible for accidents or injuries to humans and/or animals.

Copyright 2010 Leerburg® Enterprises, Inc. All rights reserved. All photos and content on leerburg.com are part of a registered copyright owned by Leerburg Enterprise, Inc. By accessing any information within Leerburg.com, you agree to abide by the Leerburg.com Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.