824 users online (105 members and 719 guests)  


Websleuths News


Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 18
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Location
    Left Coast US of A
    Posts
    417

    Can search dogs be trusted?

    In an already existing thread I posted an article about a search dog handler who was caught red handed planting bones and carpet fibers on a site being searched by law enforcement.

    http://www.nbcnews.com/id/4508072/ns.../#.WKmBpX81yxk

    This article came to my attention this morning:

    ZAPATA JURY WON'T HEAR OF DOGS' SEARCH FOR REMAINS

    ED TRELEVEN

    Sep 1, 2007

    The jury hearing the 1976 murder trial of Eugene Zapata next week won't hear anything about cadaver-sniffing dogs, a Dane County judge ruled Friday.
    The specially trained dogs, which were said to have caught whiffs of human remains in several places linked to Eugene Zapata, are no more reliable than "the flip of a coin," Circuit Judge Patrick Fiedler said in excluding testimony about the dogs during Zapata's month-long trial, which is scheduled to start on Tuesday.
    ...

    Testimony that the dogs indicated they smelled human remains at several of the sites, without evidence that any remains were actually found, would be too prejudicial to be heard by the jury, Fiedler said.

    Assistant District Attorney Robert Kaiser said the state will not immediately appeal the decision.

    Fiedler agreed with an analysis of the dogs' records by defense attorney Stephen Hurley that concluded that the dogs were incorrect 78 percent of the time for one dog, 71 percent for another and 62 percent for a third. He said they had to be right just over half of the time in order for him to consider allowing the testimony.

    "The state has failed to convince me that it's any more reliable than the flip of a coin," Fiedler said.

    http://host.madison.com/news/zapata-...d227f52b1.html


    My own opinion? It would seem that something that fails more often than it succeeds is straying a bit far into 'pseudo-science' territory.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Posts
    122
    Quote Originally Posted by proudfootz View Post


    Testimony that the dogs indicated they smelled human remains at several of the sites, without evidence that any remains were actually found, would be too prejudicial to be heard by the jury, Fiedler said
    I think maybe places where a dog alerts but no remains were actually found should be used the same way polygraphs are, they can point law enforcement in the right direction but have no place in court.
    Fiedler agreed with an analysis of the dogs' records by defense attorney Stephen Hurley that concluded that the dogs were incorrect 78 percent of the time for one dog, 71 percent for another and 62 percent for a third. He said they had to be right just over half of the time in order for him to consider allowing the testimony.
    These dogs sound poorly trained, or poorly handled. Dogs react to their handlers as much as they react to their environments. The dog could be

    This is from an article about sketchy drug dog usage.
    In many cases, police dogs are trained with positive reinforcement if they are able to find contraband, a situation that will obviously lead to false positives. However, police deny that this tactic is used in training, despite the fact that it is known to be commonplace.
    So they give them rewards any time they alert to drugs in this instance.

    Last year, we reported on the high-profile case of Timothy Young. Young was pulled over for failure to use his turn signal when a police K-9 was said to have alerted to his vehicle. After police found no evidence of drugs in his car or on his person, he was then handcuffed and driven to a hospital an hour away. During this forced visit to the hospital, Young was x-rayed and sodomized in search of non-existent substances.
    This was done because a dog barked.

    "The state has failed to convince me that it's any more reliable than the flip of a coin," Fiedler said.
    It was revealed that Lex, the drug dog in question, signaled for drugs 93% of the time, even when there were no drugs present. These findings show that dog sniffs are not accurate and are simply used as a tool to justify a full police search.
    Worse than flipping coins in some instances.
    my source:
    http://thefreethoughtproject.com/cou...-signal-drugs/


    My own opinion? It would seem that something that fails more often than it succeeds is straying a bit far into 'pseudo-science' territory.
    I think dogs work, but they are like any other tool, only as good as the person using it. Terrible handymen blame their tools when they use them wrong. I think the question is can we trust the police to properly train and handle dogs? They have a lot of incentive to find things, even when there is nothing to find.
    Clearance rates, war on drugs money, arrest numbers, civil asset forfeiture, etc...

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Location
    Left Coast US of A
    Posts
    417
    It's easy to overreact when new information becomes available. I'd always trusted reports about dogs being used in tracking, drug- and bomb-sniffing, and cadaver dogs because dogs have a good reputation for having very sensitive noses and being trainable.

    After finding the story about the dog handler who planted evidence my confidence in these stories has taken a serious blow. You're quite correct - it is down to the handler and the training. Neither can be trusted on faith and taken for granted.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Posts
    122
    Quote Originally Posted by proudfootz View Post
    It's easy to overreact when new information becomes available. I'd always trusted reports about dogs being used in tracking, drug- and bomb-sniffing, and cadaver dogs because dogs have a good reputation for having very sensitive noses and being trainable.

    After finding the story about the dog handler who planted evidence my confidence in these stories has taken a serious blow. You're quite correct - it is down to the handler and the training. Neither can be trusted on faith and taken for granted.
    I once read a thing where people were investigating how police handle drug dogs and they only rewarded the dogs and called them "good boy" or whatever when the dogs alerted and they did it immediately after the dogs alerted. They quickly learned to alert virtually every time whether they smelled something or not. I wish I could find that article. It is terrifying to think people's lives are jeopardized by this.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    6,488
    A well-trained, well-handled dog can be invaluable to an investigation. People often assume all animals used in investigations are well-trained and well-handled, and therein lies the problem.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Location
    Left Coast US of A
    Posts
    417
    I think the judge in the case cited in the OP did the right thing in disallowing testimony about the dogs indicating in places where there were no human remains. Unless there is a scientific way to distinguish false positives from real hits it could create in the minds of jurors a perception of guilt that is unwarranted.

    This brings to mind the cadaver dog's hits on the golf cart. Since the theory the police settled on did not involve the cart, the indication was simply ignored as meaningless. But had the police decided the cart was a part of their scenario, the hits would suddenly become 'evidence'.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Posts
    122
    Quote Originally Posted by proudfootz View Post
    I think the judge in the case cited in the OP did the right thing in disallowing testimony about the dogs indicating in places where there were no human remains. Unless there is a scientific way to distinguish false positives from real hits it could create in the minds of jurors a perception of guilt that is unwarranted.

    This brings to mind the cadaver dog's hits on the golf cart. Since the theory the police settled on did not involve the cart, the indication was simply ignored as meaningless. But had the police decided the cart was a part of their scenario, the hits would suddenly become 'evidence'.
    Yep. Just threw away all the evidence that didn't conveniently fit into the garbage they made up.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Posts
    4,865
    I would think if S&R dogs weren't a valuable tool in investigative procedures why use them at all if they are unreliable?
    *FREE LEONARD PELTIER*
    Justice for an innocent man.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Posts
    4,865
    A bit of a read about these types of dogs here:
    http://policek9.com/Fleck/Cadaver%20Dogs.pdf
    *FREE LEONARD PELTIER*
    Justice for an innocent man.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Location
    Left Coast US of A
    Posts
    417
    Quote Originally Posted by Karinna View Post
    I would think if S&R dogs weren't a valuable tool in investigative procedures why use them at all if they are unreliable?
    That's exactly the question raised by the information revealed in the case cited in the OP.

    It would appear their usefulness depends a great deal on their training and handling.

    If using the dogs is no better than flipping a coin as far as accuracy goes, might be better just to make sure cops have coins to flip when deciding whether a victim or a suspect was at a given location at some point.

    In this case it would appear the dogs used didn't hit on where human remains were eventually found.

    All MOO


  11. #11
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Posts
    4,865
    Quote Originally Posted by proudfootz View Post
    That's exactly the question raised by the information revealed in the case cited in the OP.

    It would appear their usefulness depends a great deal on their training and handling.

    If using the dogs is no better than flipping a coin as far as accuracy goes, might be better just to make sure cops have coins to flip when deciding whether a victim or a suspect was at a given location at some point.

    In this case it would appear the dogs used didn't hit on where human remains were eventually found.

    All MOO
    I have had this conversation a few times on various blogs about dog evidence in criminal cases, but always thought they were fairly reliable from various discussions about the subject.
    I think the general consensus was that search & rescue dogs weren't as reliable as the specifically blood & cadaver detecting dogs. I don't think all criminal trials always permit dog evidence in as being admissable either? Probably depends on the state and the judge overseeing the case?
    *FREE LEONARD PELTIER*
    Justice for an innocent man.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Posts
    4,865
    Putting Dog-Scent Evidence in Perspective

    Dog-scent evidence is tricky because the pooch obviously can’t testify. Aguilar’s lawyer couldn’t have asked Reilly about previous mistakes or ever mixing up smells. So, attorneys like Aguilar’s have to rely on experts to explain the procedures and reliability of dog-scent identifications. And it’s that reliability (both in general, and when it comes to a given dog), or lack thereof, that causes judges to frequently reject dog-scent evidence.

    While dog-scent information can be used at trial, police and prosecutors need to follow proper procedures. If there are any doubts about the dog’s consistency or ability, then that information has to be turned over to the defense. Otherwise, law enforcement risks a mistrial or overturned conviction.
    http://www.nolo.com/legal-encycloped...fications.html
    *FREE LEONARD PELTIER*
    Justice for an innocent man.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    4,109
    The only question I have bout the dogs used in SA and DB's case is can they tell the difference between animal and human?

    I thought I read on a blog that CA would hunt with the golf cart and their might have been animalblood in the garage.
    "If Jodi's lips are moving...if her pen is moving...then she lie, lie, lies!"

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Apr 2017
    Posts
    3,342
    Dogs are reliable, but their trainers may not be. A well trained dog with ignore food to get to the source that it has been trained for.

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Posts
    122
    Quote Originally Posted by wasnt_me View Post
    The only question I have bout the dogs used in SA and DB's case is can they tell the difference between animal and human?

    I thought I read on a blog that CA would hunt with the golf cart and their might have been animalblood in the garage.



    The dog used in the search was 10 year old Belgian Malinois named Brutus and was trained on human remains. He had been certified and been used for detecting human remains for approximately 8 years at the time of the Halbach case. Certification is redone annually, so it had been certified 7 or 8 times. He had been used about 150 times before the search of the Avery property and had successfully found something 70-80 times. The other times there may just not have been anything to find. Brutus had never been known to issue a false positive. One time Brutus issued a false false positive, he alerted to an area, two days were spent looking and nothing was found. The body of the person they were looking for was found there later by accident.

    Brutus trained and handled by an independent party, not part of the police department. Brutus was trained on actual human remains, as opposed to pig remains which used to be common (and was called irresponsible during the Avery trial) and as opposed to simulated human cadaver ("pseudo corpse") which is a lab made concoction that is meant to be identical to human decomposition fluids. However, in practice, they were apparently missing some aspect as it still wasn't as good as real human remains. So Brutus would have been able to distinguish human from animal blood and ignore the animal blood.

    He was also able to distinguish "live" human remains from "dead" human remains. The example given in court is sloughed off skin cells. Those would be considered "live" for about 72 hours, then a tracker dog would have trouble following them. So Brutus would be able to distinguish and ignore even that type of scent.


    I think that Brutus can be trusted as much as any cadaver dog can be. But that means that all of his alerts have to be explained by the prosecution. Any left unexplained would clearly point to an inaccurate/incomplete story of how the crime occurred.

    Interestingly enough, Brutus was never brought into the garage. Bear was there and Cramer did not want to bring Brutus close enough for there to be any tension and the weather was getting bad so they decided to end the dog search. Why Brutus was not brought back after Bear was secured and the luminol spot was found, we will never know. That might have really cleared up a thing or two.

    My source:
    http://www.stevenaverycase.org/wp-co...-2007Feb16.pdf

    Julie Cramer was Brutus the cadaver dog's handler. Her testimony begins at the very beginning of the document and goes on for over 60 pages.


    TLDR:
    Brutus could have been able to distinguish between animal and human blood. He just wasn't asked to.

Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast


Similar Threads

  1. The Search Dogs
    By SuziQ in forum Lisa Irwin
    Replies: 26
    Last Post: 10-25-2011, 12:37 PM
  2. Cadaver Dogs, Search Dogs, K9 Units
    By Friptzap in forum Caylee Anthony 2 years old
    Replies: 207
    Last Post: 06-08-2011, 07:33 AM
  3. Cadaver Dogs in search?
    By passionflower in forum Sandra Cantu
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 04-11-2009, 05:59 AM