Narc & Explosive Detection
Posted: April 03, 2017|Categories: Narc & Explosive Detection
by Andrew Weiman
For court purposes, using real drugs is always better. Drugs that have been qualitatively tested to be cocaine for example, and not some other additive will make a better court presentation.
I participated in a study with Dr. Kenneth Furton in the mid to late 90’s. Dr. Furton was determining if a dog’s indication to currency was usable in court to prove the currency’s direct contact with cocaine. The belief at the time was that all currency was contaminated with cocaine and that any such indication was useless.
by Andrew Weiman
After talking to many handlers around the country it appears that in some cases training has become a necessary evil, a time filler, or to some a waste of time. To them it has become boring, for various reasons; it’s the same old thing, nothing gets accomplished, or they feel that they just do not need it. Handlers then start to find reasons not to come to training, or find reasons to leave early and to not participate in exercises. How did training get this way? You will never find the one and only answer. It is something that just evolves over time and soon takes on a life of its own. I have a suggestion. Let’s not focus on how it became this way but how to change it.
by Ted Daus
This past September, the State of Arizona tackled the issue of whether a dog sniff (odor) provides probable cause to search in light of the fact that the State of Arizona has legal medical marijuana. Surprisingly, one court of appeals decided “YES” and the other decided “NO”. This article will briefly explain the reasoning for each case. We will have to see in the near future, who the Arizona Supreme Court resolved the conflict.