View Full Version : Dogs On Drugs



ChappellTime
06-11-2007, 09:12 PM
Anyone know anybody who works for this outfit?

jman253
06-11-2007, 10:16 PM
Well I can only assume you mean Dogs againt Drugs. There are several outfits that do really good work going to schools and educating youth on not doing drugs, stranger danger etc..... They are mostly for profit organizations but still do really beneficial work. They basically do what the law enforcement personnel don't have time to do. I have several really good friends that work for organizations like these. Some FT and some PT. Great organizations.

OkieKAS
06-12-2007, 10:09 AM
Dogs Against Drugs, Inc. (D.A.D.) is an Oklahoma based non-profit corporation specializing in drug education and detection services. Since our inception in 1983, D.A.D. has been committed to preventing the deadly combination of children and drugs in Oklahoma.

Dogs Against Drugs, Inc. (http://www.dogsagainstdrugs.com/)

Drug and Safety Education and Detection Services

(918) 251-3380

drugdogs@valornet.com


Dogs Against Drugs, Inc

Address: 1511 S Main St, Broken Arrow, OK, United States

Phone: (918) 251-3380

Contact Name: Nedean L Geurin

OkieKAS
06-12-2007, 10:12 AM
Wasps could replace dogs for sniffing out drugs, bombs


TIFTON, Ga. It might not put more sting into drug busts, but scientists are working on using trained wasps to someday replace dogs for sniffing out dope, as well as bombs and bodies.
Scientists are using a species of wasps that doesn't sting humans. They can be trained in five minutes and are just as sensitive to odors as dogs, which take longer to train at greater expense.

Using a handheld device that contains the wasps, researchers have been able to detect certain target odors.

The wasp being used is a tiny, predatory insect that relies on odors to locate food and hosts for its eggs. To train them, researchers expose hungry wasps to the target odor, let them feed and then give them a one-minute break. After three tries, the wasps associate the odor with feeding.

A tiny T-V camera inside the plastic cylinder keeps an eye on how they react.

jman253
06-12-2007, 03:21 PM
Thats incredible..I wonder if it would stand up in a court of law????? I stand corrected on the DAD, Inc. I assumed they were a for profit organization.

ChappellTime
06-12-2007, 08:49 PM
Is this the same outfit that hired Okiekatt?

Midtowner
06-12-2007, 09:37 PM
Thats incredible..I wonder if it would stand up in a court of law????? I stand corrected on the DAD, Inc. I assumed they were a for profit organization.

Why would it not stand up? The wasp's smelling ability would only be used as a tool for an officer to gain probable cause.

As the current law stands, a drug dog can sniff around your car, jump up inside it, etc. (and there are a LOT of false positives) and that's not even considered a search according to the Supreme Court of the United States.

If no probable cause is required for dogs, who gives false positives (theoretically because they associate "finding something" with being rewarded), I would think the wasp search would be even more likely to pass muster since a wasp isn't going to have an ulterior motive in providing a false positive.

Of course -- the false positive might be something law enforcement likes because such false positives often lead to the discovery of other contraband -- all of which comes in as evidence :)

jman253
06-12-2007, 10:50 PM
Trust me I am very well versed in k9 law. You must be an atty midtowner. If you are training your dog correctly you wont receive a false positive. Drug dogs have established a precedent with their noses. Their abilities if properly trained are invaluable to the public and to law enforcement. I wasn't saying the wasp thing wouldnt stand up in court I was asking if it would. I would like to see anything that helps law enforcement allowed.

jman253
06-12-2007, 10:57 PM
As the current law stands, a drug dog can sniff around your car, jump up inside it, etc. (and there are a LOT of false positives) and that's not even considered a search according to the Supreme Court of the United States.-----You are mistaken a drug dog can sniff the outside of a vehicle but can not go inside unless there is an positive response to the vehicle. I dunno who has told you there are a lot of false positives, like i stated previously if you have trained your dog properly and maintain his training their are no false positives.

If no probable cause is required for dogs, who gives false positives (theoretically because they associate "finding something" with being rewarded), I would think the wasp search would be even more likely to pass muster since a wasp isn't going to have an ulterior motive in providing a false positive----- Again mistaken midtowner, dogs are used to establish probable cause not required to use them. Also if you read the article thoroughly on the wasps, there is a motive ------they think they are associating the smell with food.

Midtowner
06-12-2007, 11:08 PM
Justice Ginsberg's dissent in Illinois v. Cabelles, the leading case in K9 non-searches refers to this study: K. Garner et al., Duty Cycle of the Detector Dog: A Baseline Study 12 (Apr.2001) (prepared by Auburn U. Inst. for Biological Detection Systems), which concluded that drug dogs return between 12.5% and 68% false positives (depending on the dog). Another case cited in that dissent admitted evidence (which means there must be indicia of scientific reliability) that 80% of money in circulation in the U.S. contains enough drug residue on it as to result in a false positive.

I'm not an attorney, just a smart ass wannabe attorney still in law school, but I have had the criminal procedure class of which roadside searches was a major aspect... :)

And of course, yes, drug dogs have established precedent with their noses, but the false positive studies are out there, and I have no reason to believe that the Auburn University Institute for Biological Detection Systems would have an agenda in providing drug dogs are of no use.

And yes, the cynic in me thinks that some unscrupulous officers use K9 searches and false positives therefrom to conduct searches when there's otherwise no probable cause. Yes, those searches are attackable in motions to suppress, but c'mon.. what department keeps records on that sort of thing? How is the defendant going to prove that this officer/dog has a history of false positives?

The pro-law enforcement side of me says that intentional false positives aren't necessarily a horrible thing, and that often, an officer's hunch is as reliable as the canine sniff (just not legally so). Whatever keeps the thugs off the streets -- more power to 'em. In full disclosure, while I might dabble in criminal at the beginning of my legal career, my goal is to have an exclusively civil practice. I don't want to make a career out of associating with criminals (even if all my clients are innocent! ;) ).

Midtowner
06-12-2007, 11:12 PM
You are mistaken a drug dog can sniff the outside of a vehicle but can not go inside unless there is an positive response to the vehicle. I dunno who has told you there are a lot of false positives, like i stated previously if you have trained your dog properly and maintain his training their are no false positives.

Opening the door of the car, letting the dog sniff the inside (from the outside) of the car, according to the practical experience of my prof, a guy who writes for the Bar will do just fine and pass muster on Motion to Supress. If that's against your department policy, fine, but it's worked elsewhere :)

The definition of "around the outside of the car" is a fungible thing.


Again mistaken midtowner, dogs are used to establish probable cause not required to use them. Also if you read the article thoroughly on the wasps, there is a motive ------they think they are associating the smell with food.

When did I suggest it was required to use a drug dog? Gosh there are a million ways to get probable cause.

Most of the time, it's by consent anyhow.

Midtowner
06-12-2007, 11:21 PM
Upon further review, the 10th Circuit (whose jurisdiction we're under) has held that even leaving the door open is verboten. Good call. That's what I get for not having a class concentrating on Oklahoma law.

I did the research.. and you're right jman. You knew that, but I figured I'd admit it :)

jman253
06-13-2007, 12:20 AM
I by know means am saying I know everything there is about K9 law. However, I have been against several atty's trying to discredit the K9. As a matter of fact (I cant remember the specific case) there was a supreme court case that derived from a OHP trooper that the supreme court determined that as long as the K9 and handler was certified at the time of the stop and at the time the PC was found that the courts can do nothing more than verify the certification levels of the K9 and handler team. That was a huge decision that they came down with. Also, we were very worried about the possible decision of Illinois vs. Cabelles ........... However, the courts ruled in law enforcements favor I do believe. That would have struck a serious blow to the efforts of all law enforcement across the nation.

Midtowner
06-13-2007, 12:26 AM
I agree -- drug smugglers definitely don't need any help!

I think the law, as it stands is pretty good.

If it paid well enough, I'd try to get on with the D.A. I think that the work they do is great -- it just doesn't pay enough.

jman253
06-13-2007, 12:27 AM
I wished I could spout off specifics about the testing of currency. There are tests that have shown that there is no reasonable proof that corrolates a specific percentage of money is tainted with drugs therefore giving false positives etc..... The term false positive is kinda a double negative isnt it. I will say that I have had that brought up in federal court about the tainted money and the studies that prove etc..... etc..... I had a good prosecutor and he had the stats on another test that was done (Again I dont know the specifics but......he spouted it off kinda like you just did) So basically what I am saying is that for every scientific opinion you can find 3 more of the same kind for just the opposite. Anyways, you seem to be very knowledgeable stay with it you will make a good atty.

jman253
06-13-2007, 12:30 AM
I understand about the pay......... neither does law enforcement. After 15 yrs of police work I finally got smart and went into private sector where I could make some money. I literally make 4 times as much starting as I did in police work after 15yrs. Thats sad huh!!!!!!! I have several friends in the metro area that are ADA's. Some good and some I think I could do a better job with no law school experience hehehe.

Midtowner
06-13-2007, 01:41 AM
Thanks for the compliments! If I end up doing criminal work (please God no) and need an expert on K9 procedure, I'll remember this discussion!