Court Cases
This case is a very important case yet many other police dog sites choose not to reveal it. The case went to the US Supreme Court and the court refused to hear it. It is a very important case that handlers should consider seriously. I have not found it posted on any other K9 website.
STATE OF TENNESSEE v. KEVON FLY After Officer Carter wrote the defendant citations for failure to possess proof of insurance and a driver’s license, he asked the defendant for permission to search his vehicle. The defendant denied the permission. The officer asked the defendant to step out of his car and informed him that the officer’s dog, Rico. Tennessee Court of Appeals held that after the business of the traffic stop was complete searching the exterior of the vehicle without consent or probable cause was an illegal search.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. GREG RENE ESPARZA Case No. CR-07-14-S-BLW, MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER
This is a case involving the use of an explosive detector dog as if it were a drug detector dog. The court held that using an explosive dog as a sniff was a search that violated 4th amendment rights.
United States vs. Patterson, 65 F, 3d 68 Wisconsin 1995 Of all the cases out there based on what I consider poorly trained dog teams this one takes the cake. In my opinion if a dog cannot work through this really simplistic situtation it has no business on the street, and the person responsible for training and maintaing this dog is not a knowledgeable trainer.
Chief District Judge Joseph F. Bataillon recently dismissed eveidence in a drug case Douglas County Deputy Sheriff Douglas Wintle, and his drug detector dog. The judge in this case appeared to understand that if the dog is reliable there is no need to spent 33 minutes as this handler did collecting information before running the dog. Also, the judge seemed to understand that claims or residual was not the same as actually finding drugs. The judge also understood, it is unnecessary for a well trained dog to be prompted by the handler or someone acting like they were hidding something to get the dog to search, and that once the dog has completed one pass around the vehicle without responding that was it. Also, repeatly taking the dog back to an area and then saying the dog responded to that area is not acceptable to this judge. Mabe this judge has opened the door for those trainer who do not know how to teach a dog to begin searching calmly and intently on command, and to respond without handler imput, to pass on out. Hopefully so then those interested in really taking drugs off the street using the dogs will be left. Then we can have real drug dogs and not probable cause dogs.
State of Utah vs. Rafael Alegria
In this case the judge ruled the dog reliable. But it goes to show what can happen by not trusting your dog. Stop asking all those questions they do nothing to help your dog and can in fact as in this case have an adverse effect. Trust your dog. If you don't trust your dog enought to run it without all those questions get another dog, or another trainer.
Arizona vs. Wright (Appeals Court Decision)
This team was trained and certified by Alderhorst International. The Sergeant and head trainer for Arizona DPS testified as an expert supporting the report submitted by David Reaver owner of Alderhorst International. The court found the dog was not reliable and the certification process invalid. Those using dogs trained and certified by Alderhorst International should review this case and compare it with their recordkeeping and certification procedures. Having reviewed at least 4 different dogs trained and certified all teams performed very similar.
This was the second time this case had been before the
courts. In the first case Wendell Nope was standing by to testify, but the
Judge ruled that probable cause existed without the dog. Federal Judge Campbell
stopped the calling of Wendell Nope to the stand. Sgt. Nope was going to
support a non-certified dog as being reliable. Judge Campbell make it clear
they prosecution did not want her to rule on the reliability of the dog. She
said that Mr. Nicely’s testimony was too convincing.
The Judge in the 2nd hearing heard the testimony of the handler and
Sgt. Wendell Nope as well as Mr. Nicely and concluded “the court credits Mr. Nicely’s
testimony over that of Officer Anderson and/or Sgt. Nope, the court finds that
Defendant has satisfied his burden of demonstrating that Oso
was unqualified to serve as a narcotics detection dog at the time he was
deployed in this case.”