We do proof. Actually, we call them negative trials. An object/odor associated with the drug trade or training is often hidden in the search area. The proper response is no response. We call the alert or indication a "final response". Only because, as a scientist once pointed out to me, it more "technically correct". An example of what we do for negative trials is uncirculated U.S. currency. I obtained 2 pounds of shredded, U.S. Currency from the Bureau of Printing and Engraving. They submitted a letter stating to the fact the currency was uncirculated. It is, on occasion hidden, in a training problem and like the drug training aids, without the handler's knowledge of what or where something is hidden. When the dog passes it, without responding, that is documented. If a dog were to respond to it, that too would be documented. Along with the extinction training that was conducted to prevent that from happening again. It's nothing more than due diligence to demonstrate the dog will respond when encountering a drug odor only at a documented proficiency level. We express that in a percentage.

DFrost

Great explanation, David.

Randy, as to your pizza question (guess you're really worried about your pizza, HA!), I guess that would be thinking of the pizza as a cover scent.

You've probably heard of people putting marijuana in coffee grounds to "cover" the odor of the MJ on the belief that the dog can't smell the MJ over the odor of the coffee. Lots of other things, including food (and probably pizza at some point ) have been used as an attempted cover scent.

The dog would have smelled the pizza AND the odor of decomp. Pizza would not have covered the odor.

Now, just because the body was no longer there does not mean that it was never there. There still would be residual odor. Materials soak up odor, particularly cloth and paper. For example, you can tell if someone is a smoker because their clothing exudes a strong odor of cigarettes.

So if there had been a body in a trunk and then removed, the odor would still be in the trunk because the odor "soaked" into the carpet of the trunk.

This is one of my favorite YouTube videos that can demonstrate this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oJHKWEa8DhE

I may have told this story here before, can't remember, but I had a particularly offensive defense lawyer questioning me on residual odor. No matter how I tried to explain it, he just kept saying, I just don't understand. So I told him; Sir, if I was to leave a distinctly offensive fart in this chair, and walk out of the courtroom, you'd still smell it. The source of that fart isn't there, but the memory lingers on. The lawyer looked at me, looked at the judge and said, I have no more questions. The judge covered his mike, leaned my way and softly said; I think he got that one, don't use it again. I smiled and said, I apologize sir. He then dismissed me. Residual odor is a reality when working with any type of odor. We document the ability of the dog to respond to residual odor, just like we do when drugs/explosives etc is present. It should be part of the training and in my opinion, part of the certification process.

DFrost

ROFL

David, can I use that story in one of my presentations??

Good one, David!

Here's what I use...I look directly at the jury and speak to them. I explain that they have just come home from a very hard day at work (which they can relate to) and when they enter the home they smell popcorn. There is excitement that they are going to get an unexpected treat but only to find that the dang kids have eaten it all! Now...the odor is still there but the source is gone. The whole time I'm explaining this to the jury I'm nodding my head "yes". By the time I'm done there is a whole jury full of bobble heads nodding "Yes". Really pisses off the defense attorneys.

Howard

 Quote: Genie Hilton

ROFL

David, can I use that story in one of my presentations??

Be my guest. It's a true story. I won't mention the court. ha ha.

DFrost

That is a good one Howard, I'll use that sometime. I don't think I'll use the other one for awhile. Certainly not in the same court. ha ha.

DFrost

They just came on the news and confirmed that the DNA was from the daughter. That is probably why they arrested the mother yesterday. They said it was check fraud, but they probably just wanted to get her out of the house safely before they released the news to the media. How sad, she was such a pretty girl.

Any other outcome, I think, would have surprised almost everyone. It is indeed sad news though.

For the dog and handler that supplied the crucial break in the case...........Some body buy that dog a pizza!!!
Hmmmm, maybe not. Perhaps he would appreciate a nice ear scratch and a chicken back. The handler can have the pizza.

Any bets against a plea of innocence from the bereaved mother?

Randy

That's what I thought, too, but I was really hoping I was wrong.