ACCURACY OF DRUG DOGS IS CHALLENGED

An Appeals Court Throws Out A Hillsborough Case, Saying No Evidence
Was Presented To Show A Drug-sniffing Dog's "Track Record"

TAMPA - Hillsborough sheriff's deputies deployed their drug-detecting
dog, Razor, to sniff around the car when they stopped motorist Gary
Alan Matheson for a traffic infraction on Hillsborough Avenue.

The German shepherd signaled the presence of drugs, which deputies
used as probable cause for the May 1999 search. The search revealed
morphine and methamphetamine.

After failing to get the evidence suppressed in court, Matheson
pleaded guilty to drug-possession charges. He received probation in
2000.

This week, however, the 2nd District Court of Appeal threw out the
case against Matheson, saying the state had not presented any evidence
of the dog's "track record" of sniffing out drugs.

The Sheriff's Office acknowledged that it did not keep records of
Razor's success rate in the field and that the dog had no training to
distinguish between actual drugs and "dead scents" from drugs no
longer present.

In its unanimous ruling, the appeals court also noted that Razor had
received only five weeks of drug-sniffing training, whereas the
Customs Service puts its dogs through a 12-week course and teaches
them to disregard residual scents.

The Customs Service requires its dogs to have a perfect record; only
half of the dogs complete the program. But the certification program
Razor attended requires only 70 percent success.

The court's ruling, which also affects law enforcement in Pinellas
County, does not forbid drug searches by dogs or declare them
uniformly unreliable. But without better training, the court ruled,
Razor should not have automatically been considered reliable enough to
give deputies probable cause for the car search.

"However much we dog lovers may tend to anthropomorphize their
behavior, the fact is that dogs are not motivated to acquire skills
that will assist them in their chosen profession of detecting
contraband," wrote Judge Stevan Northcutt.

Local law agencies say it's too early to speculate on the ruling's
impact.

Susan Shanahan, the assistant attorney general who is handling the
appeal for the state, said the state probably will ask the 2nd
District Court of Appeal for a rehearing.

"The opinion's not final, and policies won't necessarily change until
that opinion is final," she said.

The case would potentially have far-reaching implications and could
influence cases nationwide, Shanahan said.

Some people are already celebrating the ruling.

"It'll change the way they do their training and record-keeping," said
Tampa lawyer Rex Curry, Matheson's defense attorney. He argued
Matheson's motion to suppress the drug evidence.

Curry said defense lawyers from across the country already are asking
him for copies of his suppression motion for use in their own cases
involving drug-sniffing dogs.

"The whole defense community's really barking about this," he
said.

Hillsborough Sheriff's Office spokesman Lt. Rod Reder said the office
will examine the ruling.

"We hope this really can be overturned," Reder said. "We find the dogs
to be a very powerful and fair tool in the war on drugs."

In the past year, the 10 dogs the Sheriff's Office uses for drug
searches and routine patrol handled 1,595 calls. Of those, 378 were
drug searches of houses and cars, Reder said.

St. Petersburg police officials didn't want to comment on the
decision, saying they needed time to research its implications.

Deputies in charge of the Pinellas County Sheriff's Office canine unit
have been developing a system to track their dogs' success rates, said
Detective Tim Goodman, an agency spokesman.

A supplement noting whether the dog was successful during a search
goes into each report, Goodman said. Deputies have been working on
making a master list to track the performance of the dogs. Goodman
said the agency also tracks how the dogs perform in training exercises.