Anatomy of a Police Drug Dog Search

I've found myself to be a really random contributor to my own blog. I think it's because I really enjoyed writing before I felt like I had to write something. But when you start a blog it becomes a grind just like anything else (for me at least). So I have found that if I force myself to care less about maintaining this blog, when I do write something it is because I am jumping up and down on the inside, dying to convince the world of something that has become really obvious to me.

Like the drug dog scam

When this guy shows up you are no longer dealing
with facts and evidence, you are subject to the K-9
handler's feelings, biases and prejudices.

It wasn't until I read this article on reason.com that it finally occurred to me how crazy the use of dogs to sniff out drugs really is, at least when the discussion is about civil liberties. Think about it. We convict thousands of Americans every year based on the word of a creature whose sole mission in life is to please its master. We have designed a system where we rely on the testimony of a human who says he was able to properly interpret the body language of a dog that is playing a game, and he says he does so without bias or personal opinion.

I think to see how absurd this really is you have to understand how a dog is trained to locate narcotics (or explosives or squirrels or missing remote controls). It doesn't matter what the object is that is being searched for, the dog is trained basically the same way. You see, a "police" dog isn't really trained to find narcotics, it is trained to alert to an odor that he associates with his reward. Some could reasonably argue that a a standard police k-9 is not just trained to search for marijuana, cocaine, methamphetamine and opiates, he is also trained to find his tennis ball, if that is the reward that is associated with a particular scent. To the dog a vehicle search is a game because when he "comes through" he is rewarded with his tennis ball, rope tug, etc.

But the handler gives the toy (reward) no matter what the outcome of the search so the dog "wins" whether he alerts or not, right?

And if the above statement held water I would be much more inclined to see the possibility of a modicum of validity to a police dog search. But here's why it's bullshit:

That's not a coke can in his mouth
it's his reward for "finding drugs".

Most people have never been present during a k-9 search and don't really know what happens, but I have been involved in at least 100 and I can attest to the FACT that K-9 handlers keep their finger on the scale (in their favor of course) in the vast majority of searches. I have seen searches where an alert was indicated, and I have seen searches where the handler said the dog did NOT alert and the praise and reward heaped on the dog ALWAYS differs based on whether or not the dog produced an alert. If you were a dog would you rather get a tennis ball bounced and then put back in the car or would you rather get a tummy rub and a game of fetch?

¿por qué Pedro?

The position these guys hold is HIGHLY coveted in most departments and their retention as a handler depends on producing results. Most police dog handlers get their own take-home vehicle (so the department pays for all their gas and other commuting expenses), lots of specialized training (which are often just government-sponsored vacations) and best of all GUARANTEED OVERTIME. My former department adhered to federal labor law and paid all of our K-9 handlers 45 minutes per day, 7 days per week, for time spent caring for their agency-owned dog at home. That may not sound like much but that was an extra 273 hours per year, paid at time + half. Where I worked that meant an extra $8,190 per year ($20 per hour x 1.5 x 273 hours) in extra salary alone. So to say there is an incentive to keep your position would be a big understatement.

What a K-9 alert looks like

I have heard many people who have been subjected to police K-9 searches (both as a law enforcement officer and now as a critic) say something like "but the dog never even barked". I've taken people to jail over their protests of "the dog never did ANYTHING different". But what they don't understand is that a police dog alert is something that only one person at the scene is trained to "interpret", and that person is the handler. Typically a K-9 alerts on an object by sitting down (they used to be trained to scratch but departments got tired of buying paint jobs after false alerts). When the dog sits he is telling the handler "I found my toy, now give it to me". But there are other more subtle "indicators" handlers are trained to look for like changes in breathing pattern, tail pattern and other types of body language that can be interpreted to mean a positive alert is being communicated by the dog.

Does this really sound like science to anyone? There are ZERO requirements set forth in federal law pertaining to how a police K-9 is trained, how the handler is trained and very little case law that helps determine what a properly trained dog is. Yet courts interpret an "alert" as probable cause, equating a mysterious (and rarely recognizable on camera) reaction by a dog to that of a search warrant? This drug war is the biggest cash cow the government has ever had and it's made us all stupid.

Policing for Profit

How the states have used the War on Drugs to legalize and endorse highway robbery

Please note: This article is intended to expose local and state law enforcement tactics used to steal large sums of money from citizens. While this is a fairly specific article, there are thousands upon thousands of examples of this happening on the federal level as well. I mention this because most of what I write about is from personal experience as a law enforcement officer. As I have never been involved in a federal seizure I will not attempt to dissect federal laws as they are even more complicated and convoluted.

It used to be that a man had the right to be "secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures". This old, outdated concept comes from the 4th Ammendment of our Constitution. Furthermore it is supposed to apply to every man, woman and child, whether a citizen or not, as long as they are on American soil . Furthermore, the Constitution states that no State shall pass any law to interfere with the rights granted to us by the constitution.

Police Employment- Why we need to change our standards

Like many decent paying, low skill jobs, interest in police employment has certainly reached a fevered pitch in the last few years, the result of a poor economy and the desire of some people to eat (the nerve!). Before we talk about the police hiring process that is failing us, I will start with a simple question:

What is law enforcement?

Many would go with the easy answer here, which is simply "enforcing the law". My experience as a law enforcement officer involved in many aspects of policing (including the hiring process) taught me pretty quickly that the answer is much more complex than this. A police job is about much more than driving around writing tickets and arresting people for violating the law.

The number one desirable trait in a law enforcement officer should be people skills. Unfortunately, the police hiring process lacks a good way to test for this. Most law enforcement agencies rely on psychological tests (a joke), polygraph (bigger joke) and the results of a poor background check that is outsourced to the lowest bidder. Nowhere in the hiring process is a person's reasoning skills or empathy tested, unless you count one of hundreds of multiple choice questions on a laughable psychological profile test.

The Police Complaint Process

Few things in our normal, day-to-day life cause anxiety quicker than an interaction with law enforcement. Who knows why this causes many people stress? Maybe it's ingrained in us to be afraid of authority as children. Or perhaps this response has evolved in humans over millenia of dealing with unpleasant authority figures. Or maybe it's because, deep down inside, we believe the law enforcement officer is a power-hungry asshole who is going to do what they want regardless of our actions or wishes. While this isn't the way things typically go, sometimes they do. And if you have ever been subjected to a rude or lying law enforcement officer and want to file a complaint you know the road ahead of you is going to be even more stressful (and maybe cause you more problems than you have now). But why is it this way?

Holla atcher Boy

My name is Mark Bowers. No it's not, but it sounds like a pretty good pen name, right?

I am a former police officer with a major metro-area law enforcement agency. While employed in this capacity I worked in all aspects of uniform patrol, from a regular line officer to shift supervisor.

The purpose of this blog is to rationally discuss police procedures in the United States. In the last several years the citizens of this country have recognized GLARING problems with police use of force and the way law enforcement interacts with the public. What few realize is that the reason for all of these problems come from a series of poorly-written state laws as well as several important federal court cases that govern police conduct. These laws and the resulting case law have led to insane interpretations of the way authorities can interact with the public.

This blog is different from other "police outrage" websites in that I examine individual uses of force and possible constitutional violations based on years of experience doing it myself. I admit I am far from perfect, but I left law enforcement for one reason: because of the ridiculous procedural re-writes that have occurred in the last several years allowing law enforcement to justify their actions on a LAWFUL basis. The "thin blue line" is alive and well in this country.

Let me clarify that the point of this website is not to shine a light on stupid things law enforcement officers sometimes do just because they are bone heads. Every profession has idiots and this one is no different. My purpose is to expose those incidents that strike a blow at the United States Constitution while being justified, covered up or excused by department policy and complicit government employees.