I am a civilian, with an interest in the use of dogs to search visitors in a correctional institution. Recently I was appointed to a citizens advisory committee in a maximum security unit in Canada. As my role is to observe, and to ask questions, I had an opportunity to watch the narcotics dog utilized on some visitors to our institution. I have seen similar dogs working under the auspices of the NYPD and border patrol for both the US and Canada. Upon my asking about the protocol for a dog search and the basics of the training, the handler was quite defensive. After telling me the dog was trained by the best and that they (the handler) "knew" their dog well, they then said that the dog does not have to clearly indicate that it has found the scent..it only has to look in the direction of the individual that the dog believes has the narcotics. This has confused me. I do not understand how a dog can be trained efficiently and effectively, if it is not giving a clear indication, either passive or active. Do I have the right understanding? I don't want to get into specifics of training on the open net, but if someone can message me privately and answer my question, it would help me understand what I was seeing on this occasion. Thank you in advance!

If the handler 'knows' the dog they can pinpoint the instant when the dog picks up the scent, the dog should still give a clear indication.

This is what I expected. If the dog is rewarded before it gives the clear indication, would that confuse the dog? What if the handler misjudged when or if the dog actually picked up a scent?

as far as I know it only has to be clear to the handler. which has me concerned that it is ripe for abuse. The LEO stops you and says his dog alerted on your car or yourself and you didn't see anything. you have to take his word on it. with my limited experience in teaching searches, find it games really, I can subtly give my dog hints on were the toy is and get her to "alert" on things.

I really don't think any of our LEO board members are going to spell out the protocol on this, not because they are jerks but don't want to give the "bad guys" any information that would help them circumvent searchs



edit to add, I rather the explosives detector dog errs on the side of caution and has a few bad calls then miss a bomb on a bus or a plane.

Agree with you 100% on the bomb detector dog. But I am concerned,as I am sure you are, that if there is too much room for abuse, it does nothing to build respect for LEOs, Corrections, or anyone else using these dogs for such purposes.

I think you'll find there is probably a bit of difference in the protocol for an alert to be considered legal depending which side of the boarder you're on.

However, in either country I think you'll find a very wide divide between what is considered a legal alert on the street and what is legal within the confines of an institution. Particularly an institution such as a correction facility.

The officer you questioned didn't handle himself very well. I'd direct my questions to the appropriate agency.

Thanks, I appreciate that. I am no inmate advocate, but if I see animals being used in a manner that seems to be an arbitrary way of intimidation, I don't think that helps anyone on any level.

Your concern seems to stem from what you feel was a non-alert?

Keep in mind, that by even walking into a facility like a prison as a visitor (a brief visitor I hope!) one relinquishes a certain number of rights altogether.

Totally get your point and understand the logic behind that. Nevertheless, those who utilize working dogs have an obligation to the dog and to their employer to be as consistent, effective, and correct in their handling, so as not to confuse the dog and ruin its career potential. These dogs cost an awful lot to train. They are difficult to come by. You can't just walk into a shelter and create a working dog from anything that is available. The information from leerburg.com confirms one of my beliefs that you have to be careful to select the right dog with the right temperament and "mind" to work with. If you makesuch an investment of money AND time, then your handler starts getting sloppy, that will benefit no one. As for short term visitors, they know when they come in that they are subject to search, and I have seen dogs alert on someone who smoked joint a week ago. But in this case, despite the fact that the person searched volunteered for an ion scan, body search an xray, they were denied a visit. THAT kind of thing causes me concern. If the dog, indeed, found something, I still do not understand why it exhibited neither active nor passive indication. The handler said she read the body language. I understand that she might read the dog's intent before anyone else because she knows the dog. BUT, why not let the dog give the full indication. That's all I am saying. I wanted to understand if this was a proper way to conduct a search with a dog, and from what I am reading here, it sounds like it is not, and that sloppy technique can ruin a dog for this work. In that context, my role in the institution is to discreetly point this out to administration who can effectively address it,.

No need to get snippy at me Mary. I'm not the guard in question.
And in fact if I were the guard and you addressed me in a like manner, I've no doubt I'd given you the same non-answer you got originally from the handler in question.

I said it once, and I'll say it again.
If you feel something was amiss in the situation, then talk to the appropriate agency. They'll tell you what the protocol is, and likely tell you about passive and active alerts, as well as what kind of leeway the guards have within their discretion.