The Scientific Working Group on Dog and Orthogonal Detector Guidelines (SWGDOG)
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
The author(s) shown below used Federal funds provided by the U.S. Department of Justice and prepared the following final report: Document Title: The Scientific Working Group on Dog and Orthogonal Detector Guidelines (SWGDOG) Author: Dr. Kenneth Furton, Jessie Greb, Howard Holness Document No.: 231952 Date Received: September 2010 Award Number: 2005-IJ-CX-K031 This report has not been published by the U.S. Department of Justice. To provide better customer service, NCJRS has made this Federally- funded grant final report available electronically in addition to traditional paper copies. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. The Scientific Working Group on Dog and Orthogonal Detector Guidelines (SWGDOG) Award No.: 2005-IJ-CX-KO31 Authors: Dr. Kenneth Furton Jessie Greb Howard Holness Abstract The Scientific Working Group on Dog and Orthogonal detector Guidelines (SWGDOG) is a partnership of local, state, federal and international agencies including law enforcement and first responders. This project was undertaken as a response to concerns coming from a variety of sectors including law enforcement and homeland security regarding the need to improve the performance, reliability, and courtroom defensibility of detector dog teams and their optimized combination with electronic detection devices. This project was modeled after the successful precedent of a variety of other scientific working groups (SWG’s), SWGDOG being the eleventh since 2005. Presently there are thirteen SWG’s as of 2009 all challenged with developing internationally recognized consensus-based best practice guidelines developed by a membership of respected scientists, practitioners, and policy makers representing diverse backgrounds. SWGDOG general meetings have been held biannually for the past five years to produce the initial set of guidelines with NIJ funding the management of this project and the travel for international members. The DHS and FBI have funded the travel and meeting costs for the domestic SWGDOG members for the past four years. The current success of SWGDOG is being manifest by a shift of several national canine organizations to adopt the approved best practice guidelines proposed. Though SWGDOG guidelines are not mandatory, this positive change is the ultimate goal of the working group. The continued approval and revision of SWGDOG documents has received an increased number of public responses and input which has shaped the documents making them publicly vetted. Establishing consensus based best practices for the use of detection teams is expected to provide a variety of benefits to local law enforcement and homeland security. Benefits include improved interdiction efforts as well as courtroom acceptance by improving the consistency and performance of deployed teams and optimizing their combination with electronic detection devices. While it is not technically part of the scope of SWGDOG, a future accreditation program based on SWGDOG guidelines will be an important mechanism to facilitate the adoption of these SWGDOG guidelines. 1 This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. Table of Contents Executive Summary ............................................................................................................................... 3 Introduction .............................................................................................................................................. 8 Statement of the problem ............................................................................................................... 9 Literature citations and review ...................................................................................................... 10 Statement of hypothesis or rationale for the research ..................................................... 12 Methods ................................................................................................................................................... 13 Results ...................................................................................................................................................... 14 Statement of Results ...................................................................................................................... 14 Tables ................................................................................................................................................... 17 Figures ................................................................................................................................................. 20 Conclusions ............................................................................................................................................ 21 Discussion of findings .................................................................................................................... 21 Implications for policy and practice ........................................................................................ 21 Implications for further research ............................................................................................. 22 References .............................................................................................................................................. 23 Dissemination of Research Findings ............................................................................................ 23 Appendix 1- Unification of Terminology .................................................................................... 27 Appendix 2 – General Guidelines ................................................................................................... 63 Appendix 3 – Selection of Serviceable Dogs .............................................................................. 67 Appendix 4 – Kenneling and Healthcare ..................................................................................... 76 Appendix 5 – Selection & Training of Handlers & Instructors ........................................... 87 Appendix 6 – Presentation of Evidence in court .................................................................... 105 Appendix 7 – Research & Technology ....................................................................................... 111 Appendix 8 – Accelerant Dogs ...................................................................................................... 117 Appendix 9 – Agriculture Dogs ..................................................................................................... 122 Appendix 10 – Explosives Dogs .................................................................................................... 126 Appendix 11 – Narcotics Dogs ...................................................................................................... 134 Appendix 12 – Non-Specific Human Scent Wilderness Area Search ............................. 140 Appendix 13 – Pre-scented Canine Searches .......................................................................... 145 Appendix 14 – Location Checks.................................................................................................... 149 Appendix 15 – Article Search ........................................................................................................ 152 2 This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. Executive Summary The Scientific Working Group on Dog and Orthogonal detector Guidelines (SWGDOG) is a partnership of local, state, federal and international agencies including law enforcement and first responders. This project was undertaken in 2005 as a response to concerns coming from a variety of sectors including law enforcement and homeland security about the need to improve the performance, reliability, and courtroom defensibility of detector dog teams and their optimized combination with electronic detection devices. This project was modeled after the successful precedent of a variety of other scientific working groups and is developing internationally recognized consensus-based best practice guidelines developed by a membership of respected scientists, practitioners, and policy makers representing diverse backgrounds. Establishing consensus based best practices for the use of detection teams provides a variety of benefits to local law enforcement and homeland security. Benefits include improved interdiction efforts as well as courtroom acceptance by improving the consistency and performance of deployed teams and optimizing their combination with electronic detection devices. For nearly two decades, there have been scientific working groups (SWG’s) established, initially sponsored exclusively by the FBI. The purpose of these working groups was to establish professional forums in which federal, state, and local government experts, together with academic and commercial scientists and other recognized experts in the selected field could develop