Earlier this week I got stopped by the Texas HP radar for a few miles over
the limit. The officer asked for permission to do a drug search which I
declined. He then said he'd get a K9 to do an external inspection and had
the right to hold me for 15 minutes for the dog to arrive. Well it took
much longer and the guy got abusive.
Finally the dog and his escort arrived. He excercised the dog a bit and
got him ready to sniff the car. He trotted with the dog as it ran around
the car at least three times with no interest. Then the dog cop tried to
get the dog interested in the wheel well at the gas cap but the dog took no
interest. Next he ran the dog around the car again and stopped the dog at
the trunk lid, stuck one hand in the crack between the bottom of the trunk
lid and the body and made the dog put its nose there. After a bit the dog
reared and started scratching the trunk lid. This looked bogus to me as I
felt he was annoying the dog and the dog jumped up to be left alone. The
cop asked me for the key and I asked why and he said "didn't I see the
positive dog reaction?" I said I thought it was bogus and forced and he
told me that's the way it works. One cop, there were three, opened the
trunk and immediately pulled the spare tire, looked at it and the tire well
and put it back. Then after a short discussion the second cop took it out,
looked and put back. Another short discussion and another cop took it out,
bounced it, shook it while listening to it and put it back. They didn't
look in any luggage, in any packages or elsewhere! The car was a rental
from Avis in Tulsa, OK and the cop said Okla. rentals were a big drug
problem. After they let me go with the paint and plastic all scratched up
by the dog 's claws I started thinking. I was moving with the traffic at
about 75 MPH and hadn't passed anyone and had a Texas car in front and
behind. Texas cars have front tags but Oklahoma doesn't so that's how they
selected me or had a spotter somewhere.
The scene was like The Three Stooges with a dog and the dog was the
smartest one. I've seen drug dogs in action at many airports and when they
smell something suspicious in luggage they just stop and wag their tail
waiting a pat or snack. What I want to know is was what happened to me a
coerced positive or the way the K9s work. Or is there a good site where I
can get the basics as the cops told me I know nothing about drug sniffiing
dogs. I'm over 60 and been with dogs most my life.
thanks
Hank

On Fri, 30 Apr 2004 13:22:57 GMT Henry Kolesnik whittled these words:
interest. Next he ran the dog around the car again and stopped the dog at
the trunk lid, stuck one hand in the crack between the bottom of the trunk
lid and the body and made the dog put its nose there. After a bit the dog
reared and started scratching the trunk lid. This looked bogus to me as I
felt he was annoying the dog and the dog jumped up to be left alone. The
cop asked me for the key and I asked why and he said "didn't I see the
positive dog reaction?" I said I thought it was bogus and forced and he
told me that's the way it works. One cop, there were three, opened the

snip
I don't think a site on drug dogs is going to help you much. First of
different trainers/organizations will teach different cues from the
dog. But also you are much more likely to simply get information on how
it is *supposed* to be. One problem is that K9-officers are rarely any
level of expert in either dog training or dog behavior. They are taught
how to work their dogs. They are taught what they need to know to
maintain and continue training. But taking the most generous view of the
events described it is possible the officer did not recognize
that he was cueing the dog.

I don't think the dog was reacting in annoyance or wanting to be left
alone. But it looks like the dog understood that a reaction was desired
and therefore gave it. Since most people in your position aren't able to
collect and record evidence of the events the officers had very little to
lose by their behavior. Its a shame, but it is difficult to do anything
about it. Submitting a complaint would be appropriate, especially if you
make it a useful complaint. A useful complaint is one that contains a
useful solution. In this case the useful solution offered would be that
the officer receive additional training in avoiding creating a false
positive. Alone it won't change anything. But CC the complaint to
appropriate police watch bodies and if others do the same some good may
come of it. The usefulness of substance detection dogs is impaired if
they lack credibility. And intentionally or unintentionally miscuing a
dog to a false positive impairs credibility.


--
Diane Blackman
http://dog-play.com/
http://dog-play.com/shop2.html

On Fri, 30 Apr 2004 13:22:57 GMT Henry Kolesnik whittled these words:
interest. Next he ran the dog around the car again and stopped the dog at
the trunk lid, stuck one hand in the crack between the bottom of the trunk
lid and the body and made the dog put its nose there. After a bit the dog
reared and started scratching the trunk lid. This looked bogus to me as I
felt he was annoying the dog and the dog jumped up to be left alone. The
cop asked me for the key and I asked why and he said "didn't I see the
positive dog reaction?" I said I thought it was bogus and forced and he
told me that's the way it works. One cop, there were three, opened the

snip
I don't think a site on drug dogs is going to help you much. First of
different trainers/organizations will teach different cues from the
dog. But also you are much more likely to simply get information on how
it is *supposed* to be. One problem is that K9-officers are rarely any
level of expert in either dog training or dog behavior. They are taught
how to work their dogs. They are taught what they need to know to
maintain and continue training. But taking the most generous view of the
events described it is possible the officer did not recognize
that he was cueing the dog.

I don't think the dog was reacting in annoyance or wanting to be left
alone. But it looks like the dog understood that a reaction was desired
and therefore gave it. Since most people in your position aren't able to
collect and record evidence of the events the officers had very little to
lose by their behavior. Its a shame, but it is difficult to do anything
about it. Submitting a complaint would be appropriate, especially if you
make it a useful complaint. A useful complaint is one that contains a
useful solution. In this case the useful solution offered would be that
the officer receive additional training in avoiding creating a false
positive. Alone it won't change anything. But CC the complaint to
appropriate police watch bodies and if others do the same some good may
come of it. The usefulness of substance detection dogs is impaired if
they lack credibility. And intentionally or unintentionally miscuing a
dog to a false positive impairs credibility.


--
Diane Blackman
http://dog-play.com/
http://dog-play.com/shop2.html

On Fri, 30 Apr 2004 13:22:57 GMT Henry Kolesnik whittled these words:
interest. Next he ran the dog around the car again and stopped the dog at
the trunk lid, stuck one hand in the crack between the bottom of the trunk
lid and the body and made the dog put its nose there. After a bit the dog
reared and started scratching the trunk lid. This looked bogus to me as I
felt he was annoying the dog and the dog jumped up to be left alone. The
cop asked me for the key and I asked why and he said "didn't I see the
positive dog reaction?" I said I thought it was bogus and forced and he
told me that's the way it works. One cop, there were three, opened the

snip
I don't think a site on drug dogs is going to help you much. First of
different trainers/organizations will teach different cues from the
dog. But also you are much more likely to simply get information on how
it is *supposed* to be. One problem is that K9-officers are rarely any
level of expert in either dog training or dog behavior. They are taught
how to work their dogs. They are taught what they need to know to
maintain and continue training. But taking the most generous view of the
events described it is possible the officer did not recognize
that he was cueing the dog.

I don't think the dog was reacting in annoyance or wanting to be left
alone. But it looks like the dog understood that a reaction was desired
and therefore gave it. Since most people in your position aren't able to
collect and record evidence of the events the officers had very little to
lose by their behavior. Its a shame, but it is difficult to do anything
about it. Submitting a complaint would be appropriate, especially if you
make it a useful complaint. A useful complaint is one that contains a
useful solution. In this case the useful solution offered would be that
the officer receive additional training in avoiding creating a false
positive. Alone it won't change anything. But CC the complaint to
appropriate police watch bodies and if others do the same some good may
come of it. The usefulness of substance detection dogs is impaired if
they lack credibility. And intentionally or unintentionally miscuing a
dog to a false positive impairs credibility.


--
Diane Blackman
http://dog-play.com/
http://dog-play.com/shop2.html

On Fri, 30 Apr 2004 13:22:57 GMT Henry Kolesnik whittled these words:
interest. Next he ran the dog around the car again and stopped the dog at
the trunk lid, stuck one hand in the crack between the bottom of the trunk
lid and the body and made the dog put its nose there. After a bit the dog
reared and started scratching the trunk lid. This looked bogus to me as I
felt he was annoying the dog and the dog jumped up to be left alone. The
cop asked me for the key and I asked why and he said "didn't I see the
positive dog reaction?" I said I thought it was bogus and forced and he
told me that's the way it works. One cop, there were three, opened the

snip
I don't think a site on drug dogs is going to help you much. First of
different trainers/organizations will teach different cues from the
dog. But also you are much more likely to simply get information on how
it is *supposed* to be. One problem is that K9-officers are rarely any
level of expert in either dog training or dog behavior. They are taught
how to work their dogs. They are taught what they need to know to
maintain and continue training. But taking the most generous view of the
events described it is possible the officer did not recognize
that he was cueing the dog.

I don't think the dog was reacting in annoyance or wanting to be left
alone. But it looks like the dog understood that a reaction was desired
and therefore gave it. Since most people in your position aren't able to
collect and record evidence of the events the officers had very little to
lose by their behavior. Its a shame, but it is difficult to do anything
about it. Submitting a complaint would be appropriate, especially if you
make it a useful complaint. A useful complaint is one that contains a
useful solution. In this case the useful solution offered would be that
the officer receive additional training in avoiding creating a false
positive. Alone it won't change anything. But CC the complaint to
appropriate police watch bodies and if others do the same some good may
come of it. The usefulness of substance detection dogs is impaired if
they lack credibility. And intentionally or unintentionally miscuing a
dog to a false positive impairs credibility.


--
Diane Blackman
http://dog-play.com/
http://dog-play.com/shop2.html

"Henry Kolesnik" wrote in message om...

I've seen drug dogs in action at many airports and when they
smell something suspicious in luggage they just stop and wag their tail
waiting a pat or snack. What I want to know is was what happened to me a
coerced positive or the way the K9s work. Or is there a good site

Every dog reacts differently to scent recognition and they can be
trained to offer a trained behavior or the handler can just rely on
his ability to read the behavior they naturally offer. Neither
approach is better or worse and there is no general rule about it.
All you need is a unique behavior pattern that can be backed up with
training records. You didn't see a coerced positive. Handlers will
indicate to a dog an area that they want checked. There are a number
of explanations of why a dog might give a false positive, from residue
from previous contents of the trunk to simple fatigue and desire to
please. You'll find links to information on scentwork at
www.nasar.org

Lynn K.

"Henry Kolesnik" wrote in message om...

I've seen drug dogs in action at many airports and when they
smell something suspicious in luggage they just stop and wag their tail
waiting a pat or snack. What I want to know is was what happened to me a
coerced positive or the way the K9s work. Or is there a good site

Every dog reacts differently to scent recognition and they can be
trained to offer a trained behavior or the handler can just rely on
his ability to read the behavior they naturally offer. Neither
approach is better or worse and there is no general rule about it.
All you need is a unique behavior pattern that can be backed up with
training records. You didn't see a coerced positive. Handlers will
indicate to a dog an area that they want checked. There are a number
of explanations of why a dog might give a false positive, from residue
from previous contents of the trunk to simple fatigue and desire to
please. You'll find links to information on scentwork at
www.nasar.org

Lynn K.

"Henry Kolesnik" wrote in message om...

I've seen drug dogs in action at many airports and when they
smell something suspicious in luggage they just stop and wag their tail
waiting a pat or snack. What I want to know is was what happened to me a
coerced positive or the way the K9s work. Or is there a good site

Every dog reacts differently to scent recognition and they can be
trained to offer a trained behavior or the handler can just rely on
his ability to read the behavior they naturally offer. Neither
approach is better or worse and there is no general rule about it.
All you need is a unique behavior pattern that can be backed up with
training records. You didn't see a coerced positive. Handlers will
indicate to a dog an area that they want checked. There are a number
of explanations of why a dog might give a false positive, from residue
from previous contents of the trunk to simple fatigue and desire to
please. You'll find links to information on scentwork at
www.nasar.org

Lynn K.

"Henry Kolesnik" wrote in message om...

I've seen drug dogs in action at many airports and when they
smell something suspicious in luggage they just stop and wag their tail
waiting a pat or snack. What I want to know is was what happened to me a
coerced positive or the way the K9s work. Or is there a good site

Every dog reacts differently to scent recognition and they can be
trained to offer a trained behavior or the handler can just rely on
his ability to read the behavior they naturally offer. Neither
approach is better or worse and there is no general rule about it.
All you need is a unique behavior pattern that can be backed up with
training records. You didn't see a coerced positive. Handlers will
indicate to a dog an area that they want checked. There are a number
of explanations of why a dog might give a false positive, from residue
from previous contents of the trunk to simple fatigue and desire to
please. You'll find links to information on scentwork at
www.nasar.org

Lynn K.