This decision will be good for the K9 profession in the long run. I tweill also be good for because the decision was unanimous. I think it may result in us having to explain how we test AND why we test that way. Nothing wrong with that IMHO.

Excerpts from The Harris v Florida Case that a lot of folks expected would be a Water Loo kind of decision for K9:

"A finding of a drug-detection dog's reliability cannot depend on the state's satisfaction of multiple, independent evidentiary requirements," she said. "No more for dogs than for human informants is such an inflexible checklist the way to prove reliability, and thus establish probable cause." Reffering to the FL supreme court's decision that the sate must produce "training and certification records, field performance records, explanation of those records, and evidence concerning the dog handler's experience and training".

Instead of depending on police performance logs — "Errors may abound in such records," Kagan noted — "standard training and certification records from the dog's training are much more reliable", she said.

"The better measure of a dog's reliability thus comes away from the field, in controlled testing environments," she said. "For that reason, evidence of a dog's satisfactory performance in a certification or training program can itself provide sufficient reason to trust his alert."

But don't break out the barrel just yet, "Defendants can challenge that evidence, Kagan said, by asserting for example that the training was too lax or the certification methods faulty."

Be ready, handlers and trainers, to defend your training and testing methodologies.

David Latimer
Director of Public Safety / Chief of Police
Harpersville, AL

David Latimer
Dir Public Safety / Chief of Police
Harpersville, AL