Page 4 of "The UNKNOWN LINK
Continuation of Trailing vs. Tracking
I have trailed (I guess I should say my dogs have) a suspect through "Universal City-Walk", a tourist attraction in Southern California. We have trailed a person who laid a trail around the area of the Rose Bowl in Pasadena before the World Cup Soccer match, then worked the trail the day after the match and after 10's of thousands of people walked on or across the trail. We have trailed a person that laid a trail on part of the Rose Parade route...trail laid before the parade and run after the parade. 'Nuf said?
TRUTH IN DOCUMENTATION, or, HONESTY...THE ONLY POLICY. Honesty will make you, or break you. Everything you do, every case you work, everything you document, will be scrutinized some day in court. Some defense lawyer will pick apart your every word, try to make you out to be some bumbling fool with a dog that would serve everyone better as a throw rug. Document your training, your progress, and your cases honestly. Of course you will document the good progress you make when training, but if the dog, or more likely you, make a mistake, document it. Then document the follow-up to show the problem was corrected. Nobody will believe you if you stand up in court and say, "Both the dog and I are perfect, we never make mistakes". Once you are actually working cases, there shouldn't be many of these mistakes, but you are only human, and your dog is still a dog...both can goof. I have had so-called expert witnesses testify that it is impossible for a trailing dog (or any dog, according to one) to have an error rate of less that 30-40%...the dog is wrong at least one out of three times. What do ya expect from a defense whore? I would consider an error rate of 10% unacceptable, and an error rate of 5% marginal for any of my dogs. And then, you will most likely find that most of the errors that are made are handler errors, and that the dog makes very few. Don't yell at your dog until you are sure who is wrong (and even if it is the dog that is wrong, will yelling at it help?)!
Another area of honesty to be delt with comes from unintentional causes, or from the best of intentions, but both must be avoided. An example of the best intentions dishonesty would be if a detective told you where the suspect had run, and wanted you to "direct" your dog to confirm this information. WRONG! This to me is the same as an out and out lie. There are ways to honestly make the same determination, but it is important we never "direct" the dog to go somewhere. The unintentional dishonesty would be when you are told witness statements put your suspect running east from the scene, you start your hound and it wants to go west, so you pull it off the trail thinking it should go east, and maybe even try to make the dog go east. WRONG! Do all witnesses tell the truth? Do all witnesses recall accurately what they saw? If your dog wants to go west, trust it and go west. My policy is to KNOW NOTHING about where the suspect may, or may not have gone...TRUST YOUR DOG...let the dog tell you the story in it's "own words". When I get to a crime scene I get the information I need (such as suspect description, weapon used, etc., the stuff you need to know for safety), but don't allow them to give you too much information, such as direction of travel, or where they may have ended up. When you work a case it must be "blind". Otherwise the defense will make the inference that you led your dog, or caused it to alert, and the jury will be inclined to ignore your work. IF the handling officers believe they know where a suspect may have ended up, but the trail must be run to get enough information for a warrant, make sure you have good back-up protection with you that know the location and can be alert to protect you and you furry partner when you get there, but again, don't let them influence you or the dog.
Your agency will probably have policies in place regarding documentation, however I would suggest someone check with a good Prosecuting Attorney for their input at to what should, and should not, be included.
THE SCENT STUDIES. Whenever I want to test whether the dogs can get scent off a new type of article I use a simple test called the "T" trail. For example, when we (we refers to The Southern California Bloodhound Handlers Coalition) started trying to see if the dogs could work scent from exploded pipe bombs...studies I was involved with in conjunction with both the F.B.I., and the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Arson/Explosives Detail...we would have a person handle the components of the bomb to simulate the person building the bomb. The bomb is the then detonated, the fragments collected, and scent pads made. The person that handled the bomb prior to detonation is not allowed anywhere near the bomb fragments or scent pads to prevent their scent getting on them after detonation. To check if the dog can get scent from the item, the person who handled the bomb, and another person who has had no contact with the bomb, it's fragments, or the scent pads, walk together for a distance, usually a few hundred feet, then "T" off from one another, and walk at 90 degrees from the original path, and 180 degrees from each other, forming a "T". See diagram next page.
