"Nate Nagel" > wrote in message
...
> jaybird wrote:
>
>> "Nate Nagel" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>>>jaybird wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>"Scott en Aztlán" > wrote in message
m...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>On Sun, 30 Jan 2005 20:59:40 GMT, "jaybird" > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>Bull. The dog alerts to what ever the cop handling it wants you to
>>>>>>>think
>>>>>>>that it is alerting to regardless of what the dog is smelling so that
>>>>>>>he
>>>>>>>can intimidate you into giving up your constitutional rights.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Nope, not the way it works. A dog can't certify if it just alerts to
>>>>>>anything the handler wants it to.
>>>>>
>>>>>Tell us more about the certification process. Specifically, what
>>>>>safeguards are in place to prevent a handler from simply simulating
>>>>>the desired results by only telling the dog to alert on the real drugs
>>>>>during the certification test?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>But the dog _is_ supposed to alert only on the real drugs.
>>>>
>>>
>>>How can you prove that? can you *prove* that the dog won't do the same
>>>exact alert upon a subtle command from its handler?
>>
>>
>> Sure, but the point is to do the opposite. There is no reason to have a
>> dog alert where not contraband is at for different reasons. For one and
>> the most obvious, I don't want to waste my time searching something if
>> there is nothing there to find.
>
> Sure there are, like wanting to search a car for completely different
> reasons (suspicion of, say, carrying weapons or other illegal but
> non-narcotic items, or just to give someone a hard time for mouthing off -
> not that I'm entirely opposed to the last, but it's still illegal)

Yeah, some people need attitude adjustments now and then, but I'm not
willing to risk a civil rights violation just to do it.

>
>> Second, a handler may get in his mind where he thinks contraband might be
>> and inadvertantly cause the dog to alert, failing certification. There
>> are so many different scenarios that the dogs have to go through during
>> certification that to have a dog paying attention to anything other than
>> the odor will cause the dog to false alert and fail. The less stimulus
>> from the handler the better.
>>
>
> I believe what you say but that still does not preclude a handler from
> training a dog to alert on command and still have the dog pass its
> certification test.

And yes, I'm sure the possibility is there to cause an alert but as I've
said before, it's not normal practice and if the guy does it once he'll do
it again. When it comes time to re-certify, that dog will be looking to the
handler for clues rather than to the area he's supposed to be sniffing. Bad
practices breed bad performance and bad results on certification.

--
---
jaybird
---
I am not the cause of your problems.
My actions are the result of your actions.
Your life is not my fault.