SNIFFING OUT THE TRUTH ABOUT DRUG DOGS:

AN INTERVIEW WITH REX CURRY

How good are drug dogs at their jobs? Attorney Rex Curry has been
looking at that question for years.

Back in 2003, Curry argued a case in Florida challenging the
reliability of a police drug dog. The dog had signalled drugs on
Curry's client, but Curry showed that the dog didn't have adequate
training, and if it did, police should have kept records proving that
the dog was reliable for a decent wrap-up of the case, check this
news story - http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v03/n1194/a04.html

Curry's argument prevailed, and the charges were thrown out. Police
appealed, so far unsuccessfully. But the Attorney General of Florida
is trying to get the U.S. Supreme Court to take the case. Curry has
archived the court documents at his website -
http://rexcurry.net/drugdogsmain.html - which also contains other
details about drug dogs.

DrugSense Weekly interviewed Curry recently about the where the case
is going, and drug-sniffing dogs in general.

DSW: What is the status of the Florida v. Matheson case you detail at
your site? Is the case headed for the U.S. Supreme Court?

Rex Curry: You are in luck because you are one of the first to learn
that the court has asked for a response (this is also visible from
the court's docket entry) and I have been told the court asked for
transcripts. This is peaking interest in the case. Of course, it is
already AT the Supreme Court, the only question is whether the Court
will "bite" at the dog case and decide to hear oral arguments and
issue a written opinion.

DSW: How did you get involved with that case?

Curry: I developed the entire strategy from the beginning and argued
the original motion to suppress evidence and filed the original
appeal that started the trek to the U.S. Supreme Court. The victim
of the drug dog talked with me last night about the case.

DSW: It seems from information at your website that drug-sniffing dog
training, quality and testing varies widely. Is that correct?

Curry: Correct. Drug-sniffing dog training, quality and testing varies widely.

DSW: How wide is the variation - for example, what is the success
rate of the best dogs vs. the success rate of the worst dogs? How
wide is the variation in the way success is defined in dog training programs?

Curry: It is difficult to measure or quantify the width of the
variation. That is one reason why law enforcement does not desire to
keep records about their dogs. It prevents attorneys from examining
the issue. In a sense, one of the ideas in the court case is "If you
law enforcement officers will not keep records, then we judges will
make your lack of records YOUR problem when we judges evaluate the
dogs in a motion to suppress evidence."

DSW: I've read that dogs are most competent when they've trained on,
at most, five different drug scents, and that attempts to train them
on a higher number of scents just confuses dogs. Does that sound
accurate? If so, does this play into court cases? For example, can
you as an attorney find out what specific drugs the dogs were trained
to detect?

Curry: Well, five is not a magic number. And your question points up
the problem: Every dog is different. Each must be evaluated
individually and repeatedly, with records that are maintained to
enable evaluation and to note changes. For example, dogs age and dogs
become ill. That and other changes can cause a good dog to go bad at
any time. All of that plays into court cases and the reluctance of
law enforcement to keep records on dog performance. Usually an
attorney can find out what specific drugs the dogs were trained to
detect, but believe it or not, even those types of records can be
difficult to acquire. Once acquired, the records can be vague about
the actual training procedures and performance.

DSW: I'm told (ahem) that the scent of marijuana can vary widely
between different strains. Does this present a problem for the dog,
or is there some basic component of cannabis that they will always
recognize if they are competently trained?

Curry: The state of science is not even able to answer your question
clearly at this time in the sense that scientists are not certain
what the dog is smelling as compared with what you or I smell. For
example, dogs are sometimes trained using "pseudo" drugs that are not
actual drugs. Well, what if the dog is smelling something on pseudo
drugs that is NOT always an illegal smell? What if the dog alerts to
that smell, which is NOT an illegal component of the smell? That is a
difficult question to answer, but could be aided with record keeping
of the dog's performance in the field or "on the street." The world's
oldest living medical marijuana patient also pointed out a problem
with drug dogs. He said "I was in the airport recently and a dog
sniffed my bag and walked away. I called to the handler and asked if
the dog was trained for bombs or drugs, and the handler said 'for
drugs.' So I told him to bring the dog back because I had marijuana
in my bag." His medicine was in a bottle with a good cap, which can
prevent air-flow, meaning that it can eliminate or reduce any actual
particles in the air that the dog would smell.

DSW: Given the problems with drug dogs explored at your website, why
do you think they are so popular with police departments and
municipal government?

Curry: Oh that is easy. You have to remember that there is a strong
incentive for law enforcement not to CARE whether the dogs are
accurate. The dogs can simply be props for lies, in that the dogs
are there to overcome refusals to consent to search, and the dog
provides law enforcement officers (LEOs) with the ability to say that
an alert occurred even if there was no alert. And here is another
angle: some LEOs do not want a "drug dog," they want a "car dog," in
that they want a dog that when shown a car will alert, as if to say
"yes that is a car." For some LEOs the goal is to search whenever the
LEO desires, period. The dog is simply a ruse to do so. That is why
the dogs are so popular. Do not be confused with the idea that the
idea that there are "problems with drug dogs." For some LEOs those
are not problems at all. And again, that is why some LEOs have no
interest in maintaining records about their dogs.