CANINE SNIFF APPLICATION FOR SEARCH WARRANT

CANINE SNIFF ELEMENTS IN REPORT WRITING:

Elements required in report writing:

A) Handler:

• Training.
• Experience.

B) Dog:

• Trained:
Both initial and on-going maintenance training.

• Certified:
Dog was proven to locate the odor of drugs, which he is trained to detect.

The U.S. K-9 industry standard is yearly certification. This is recommended and endorsed by the three largest K-9 associations: USPCA (United States Police Canine Association), NAPWDA (North American Police Work Dog Association), and NPCA (National Police Canine Association). The yearly certification is also recommended and endorsed by the largest contraband detector dog association: NNDDA (National Narcotic Detector Dog Association).

• Reliable:
Reliability is evaluated by a percentage of reliability:

Formula for percentage of reliability:
Percentage of reliability comes from training:
Take the total number of “false’s” (also known as “false positives”, “false responses”, “false alerts”) in training, divided by the total number of training sniffs, where target odor is available to the dog’s nose.

As an example:
     Total number of "false's"................................................................ 2
     Total number of “training sniffs”................................................ 100

     Divide 2 by 100 = 2% false response rate and therefore, the dog
     has a 98% reliability rate.

These on-going records can document these elements:

• Resume of the handler.
• Resume of the dog.
• Training records.
• Deployment or incident records.

Since the dog alerts to the odor of drugs which it is trained to identify, it is important to articulate this alert as follows:

Narcotic detector dog “________” is trained to detect the odor of controlled substances. These substances include (list marijuana, hashish, cocaine, heroin, methamphetamine, etc.). Upon location of the odor of these (five) controlled substances, the dog’s behavior will change. The dog is trained to come to a final response of biting and / or scratching at the source of the odor. This is called an “aggressive” final response. This response may also indicate items recently contaminated with, or associated with, the odor of one or more of the controlled substances.

A) United States v Ibarra (345 F. 3d 711 (2003) Ninth Circuit

Officers had probable cause to search defendant’s vehicle after valid traffic stop, DEA provided information suspecting the defendant and drug sniffing dog alerted to presence of a drug’s SCENT in the vehicle. The handler saw the dog alert indicating that the dog smelled the ODOR of narcotics emanating from the vehicle, that would lead a reasonable officer to believe narcotics would be found inside the vehicle.

B) United States v Boxley (373 F. 3d 759 (2004) Sixth Circuit

We recognize that a positive canine alert indicates that narcotics are present in the item sniffed or have been present in such a way as to leave a detectable odor.

C) United States v Kaniff (351 F. 3d 780 (2003) Seventh Circuit

The defendant was routed to a secondary U.S. Customs inspection area at the airport, after a trained dog independently alerted to the odor of narcotics from her person or from a box she was carrying. When the defendant walked down the jetway past the dog, the dog pulled away from the handler, began to “work the air” behind the defendant trying to trace the source of the scent of narcotics he detected, and eventually circled the defendant’s body before hitting a box she was carrying with his nose.

The dog handler did not allow the dog to finish his alert by sitting down because the handler was not in a position immediately to verify the source of the narcotics odor and did not want to reward the dog for a potential false alert. The court concluded the dog alerted to an odor of narcotics that was somewhere between his nose, traveler’s body, and the box that traveler was carrying.

D) United States v Ramirez (473 F. 3d 1026 (2007) U.S. Court of Appeals Ninth Circuit

Defendant’s invalid arrest for driving without California driver’s license did not require suppression of cocaine that was found in automobile, where arrest was not causal factor in officers’ discovery of cocaine. Officers would have discovered drugs even if defendant had not been arrested on basis of driving without a California driver’s license.

Narcotics squad, with their drug-sniffing dog, arrived shortly after stop, dog alerted to scent of cocaine establishing probable cause to search for contraband under Fourth Amendment.

Behavior analysis scientists have confirmed that dog’s alert to odor. When a dog is trained to detect a substance, it learns to discriminate the odor vapor of that substance from other odors in the environment by reacting to the compound(s) that best help it earn reinforcement from the handler. With sufficient training, the compound(s) whose detection most often results in reinforcement become the “odor detection signature.”

Odor detection signatures cannot always be accurately predicted based upon the chemistry of the material. Identification of odor detection signatures can allow for better selection of training aids, suggest ways for improving training, and most importantly, explain false positive alerts.

Whether the search is by warrant or a warrantless search, records corroborating the handler’s and dog’s reliability may be challenged in court. There is one case, which refused to allow the defense requests for extensive records. The court stated that the documents were not relevant because the dog was certified on the day in question and because the dog properly alerted to the presence of contraband. (United States v Gonzalez-Acosta (989 F. 2d 384 (1993) Tenth Circuit.)

Return to the Index

Return to the Home Page

Webmaster