Anytime you deal with explosives detection as with any other dog training, you must practice the way you want to work. Realistically, and without disclosing a lot of information, IED's are not constructed using grams. Think of the truck bomb that was used in Oklahoma City. We aren't talking ounces here. After reviewing threat analysis data, training has to be designed to handle the threat. Trainers, whether civilian or police that do not have access to the types and amounts of explosives that are needed to be effective are doing a disservice to those that entrust them. As to the covert test they ran on the dogs in question, how bad a day can a dog have when he misses multiple pounds of C4, TNT etc. They didn't use grams or ounces but several pounds, and they did the test on more than one occasion. I don't disagree that they may not get a conviction, I've been involved in the court system for many years, none-the-less, what was done is criminal. Not to offend anyone, but since this thread is located in a police area, it also shows that police work is not a sport, it isn't a hobby or an avocation. Lives are at stake. People that work with explosives for a living, whether detection or render safe, have a different perspective from those that dabble in it. I don't have customers, clients or perspective buyers. The Troopers I train for I see each day and they demand nothing but the best. If the Government really wants experts in the field, the US Military has been in the explosives detection dog training business longer than most anyone in the US, followed by the Secret Service and then the TSA (formerly the FFA) They have evaluated, certified and decertified hundreds of dogs over the years. They have the expertise to put on convincing testimony, if they are serious about prosecution.

DFrost

Understood. Thank you.

I agree with you Mr. Frost but I will add that the best in any field in America tend not to stay directly employed by Uncle Sam for long.

It is a difficult field and as I have posted and we have seen some “state ran” agencies consistently produce marginal dogs and employ outdated misunderstood tactics as well. I think police pro’s should train police tactics but dog trainers better be educated and experienced dog people, badge or no badge and let the dog tell the rest of the story.

I can bet that the defense will be that there is no definition of what the product should do that the defendant has produced a functioning product/service that everyone will testify to is not perfect. There will be some doubt.
I think there will be no serious conviction here but in civil court where the standard is lowered the government would prevail.

Mr Sheldahl,

I agree with you on that. It has always amazed me that at times we (law enforcement) are our own worst enemies. We do lists of specifications for buying copiers, cruisers, guns and bullets, but when buying a dog so many, particularly the smaller departments, go entirely on the word of a vendor, trainer or whomever happens to have a dog available for sale. It has never made sense to me.

DFrost

Here is something taken from this guy's Website.

"Unlike police canines, Jaxon and his peers are not trained to perform patrol work, which involves capturing and holding suspects. Because Jaxon and his friends are not trained to bite, they can freely mingle with students and employees they simply sit down when drugs are present and lay down when guns or explosives are indicated. Jaxon and his peers are capable of working four to eight hours a day, instead of the short duration typical of cross-trained patrol dogs. The average U.S. Customs trained drug dog is capable of searching 45 cars a day. Most school parking lots have 300-400 cars. A team of DDADE dogs is capable of sweeping the entire parking lot in a short period of time. DDADE dogs have 600% more detection capability than typical law enforcement dogs and are trained for today's threats (drugs, guns, and explosive bombs)."

And here is a place were he might be screwed if it is brought to light in court...NO way can a dog detail 300-400 cars and do a good job. But notice he does not say this...he says "A team of DDADE dogs is capable of sweeping the entire parking lot in a short period of time."

Soo... he is really saying he is walking his dog in a parking lot full of cars and calls it sweeping. I wonder if any detailing is going on during this "sweep". If so how much?

That would be my direct question to him. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

The problem with Ebersole's "generation II" pitch is that real detailing of an area even a brief sweep has physical effects on the dog...it is tiring and not drive sustaining. The claim a dog can work 4-8 hours straight and doing good detection work is just bunk. If I were the prosecution I would look closely at this and see how long one dog worked on the jobs he contracted. If one dog worked long hours "actively searching” then..."Check" one for the prosecution.

It will be interesting to see how this trial progresses and if any "guidelines" will be put in place to protect against this in the future.

We routinely do 25 to 50 vehicles in a single training exercise. I've been to the border on numberous occasions and have watched US Customs. They maintain a surprisingly good proficiency rated and can consistently do more than 45 vehicles in a day. He claims he can sweep parking lots of that size and that his dogs are 600% more proficient than the average police dog. I don't see our dogs missing 20 pounds of dynamite, I don't care how big the lot is, or how loose the sweep is. His "highly trained and revolutionary" dogs had multiple opportunities to detect significant quantities and failed. I don't think I'm too impressed.

DFrost

I read where Mr Ebersole was convicted on numerous counts. Sentencing to follow. It will be interesting to see what the penalty for his convictions will bring. Will there be federal oversight? I seriously doubt it (nor would I want to see it). However you can bet the Feds will be taking a stronger look at any vender that is providing that type of service.

DFrost

What also needs to be considered is the very nature of EOD, K9 assited or otherwise: initial success or utter failure. I think this case will bring " certified trainer" and "minimum standards" into the political arena. Here we go again......