When a private entity is searching for drugs, in most cases there is not going to be a court trial on drugs found, and the question of probable cause would not come into the picture for the vast majority of the time.

While I know it has come up I cannot find a case on point that has dealt with this issue.

This issue of pseudo has been bounced around for..... I do not know how long. While the argument can be made for the reason's on why to use real narcotices, I can tell you with confidence that there are a number of Police Departments that do use this product for training, and have never ran into any problems. I would like to know if anyone knows a case where the fact that the dog was trained on pseudo was a loosing factor for the team's credibilty.

There are no appeallate level cases concerning this subject. Pseudo has a long track record of success and is used in training by the largest detector dog training organizations in North America the US Customs and the US Border Patrol. They would stop if their programs were put in jeapordy by doing so. They have benn doing it for a long long time and in fact the US Customs are the pioneers of using pseudo scent. It is important to understand that ina court case you are trying to demonstrate probable cause. In probable cause you don't have PROOF of narcotics, that comes from finding a questionable substance and sending it to a lab for analysis. Unfortunatly, many handlers shave lost sight of what probable cause means in regards to their dogs work.

OK that is a great point that you have brought out in regards to probable cause. Now I am sure there is going to be an argument that if I am not mistaken the US Customs and Border Patrol use thier dogs in points of entry; they are allowed to search anyway without the rescrictions that a LEO would have on the streets. But I see your point.

THanks for the info.

Originally posted by Michael Talyor Rivers:
OK that is a great point that you have brought out in regards to probable cause. Now I am sure there is going to be an argument that if I am not mistaken the US Customs and Border Patrol use thier dogs in points of entry; they are allowed to search anyway without the rescrictions that a LEO would have on the streets. But I see your point.

THanks for the info. They train a large number of other agencies and are often requested by civilian law enforcement for assistance.
In regards to much of USBP's work it is away from the ports of entry, customs mans those.

DFrost, check your PM's

Corgi,

Shamefully, I admit, I'm computer illiterate. How in the world do I check my private messages. LOL. Sorry, hey i'm just a dirtball dog handler. As you know, i've not checked my private messages. I'm hoping someone else hasn't tried to PM me and are now thinking i've ignored them. Honestly, I'm not a rude person, just not the sharpest knife in the drawer when it comes to computers.

DFrost

DFrost,

Go to the upper right hand corner and click on my profile. Then just click on the messages to see what they are. Also, from the same page you can go to the View/Update Profile, towards the bottom of that page you can click on the yes button next to "Be notified by e-mail when someone sends you a private message." and the board will forward the mesage to your listed e-mail address.

Mr. Cannon

Thank you very much. As I found out, i've unintentionally ignored several people. Thankyou for your help

DFrost

BC, is this Federal or State case law? I would REALLY like to read that and forward it to our legal guys for an opinion. And lets not forget, the dogs alert on the odor of contraband, not the presence of it. Carpet and other materials are scent sponges. Can't tell you how many times we've made a double stop with dope in either car but not both. The dog has alerted on both cars and enough odor in the "empty" car that it is detectable by the human nose;and the admission of the bad guys to switching from car to car every now and again. I have seen dogs trained on both but ultimately tested only on the real stuff. Oh, and Lord help you if the integrity of the "real" drug's container comes into question. Brings back the whole point of probable cause. The foundation of the dog's alert is so well established; I will use a dog in addition to a signed consent to search form.

Trooper:
I "think" it is state case law. I do remember hearing about it during a training class that I attended. I'm still not back to work yet, but as soon as I get back I will see if I can find it and will keep you posted.
Brandon