|
Training Information
 |
| |
Articles of Interest from WWW.MESARD.ORG
Maine Search and Rescue Dogs Website
The author provides these articles for non-commercial use to
advance and promote the use of
working dogs in law enforcement and search and rescue. Any
duplication or use of these
articles or quotations from them for commercial purposes
requires the permission of the
author.
***Please Note***
Clicking on the links below will open a new window and take you
out of the USPCA Region 7
Website. To return, simply close the window. Since these links
take you to another site and could be changed by that site
please report any broken links to me at liasos@uspca7.com
Advanced
Tracking
Teaching
Scent Discrimination
Environmental Conditioning for Police K-
9's
Teaching the
"Handler Proof" Find/Refind
Temperment and Personalities in Dog
Training
Evidence Search
Timing is
Everything
Negative
Searching
The Start is the Most Difficult
Part
Not Using Force in Police Dog
Training
To Fetch
or Not to Fetch
Picking a
Working Puppy
Tracking Handling
Search and Rescue Dogs and the Ground
Searcher
Working Dog
Management
Searching for the Mentally
Disabled
Obedience and the Detector Dog: Is the
Handler up to the Task?
List Members complete study released last week and attached in
a pdf. I have also just attached the part dealing just with Police
Dogs, the complete study itself is over 100 pages. K-9 appears
to me to have faired well.
Russ
Less Lethal Weapon Effectiveness, Use of Force, and Suspect &
Officer Injuries: A Five-Year Analysis
A report to the National Institute of Justice
CHARLIE MESLOH Florida Gulf Coast University
MARK HENYCH Advanced Research Solutions
ROSS WOLF University of Central Florida
Police Dogs
Based upon case law and the definition of deadly force, the law
enforcement canine also falls into the category of a less-lethal
technology. Unfortunately, as a biological technology, it does
not easily fit into one of the existing categories. As a result,
most force continuums do not address the police dog as an
instrument of force. Accordingly, it is the canine handler on the
scene that must know the level of force that his or her particular
dog is capable of producing (Mesloh, 2006).
Given that a German shepherd can exert a bite force of 1500 psi
(Hutson et al., 1997), the potential for serious injury is great.
These injuries range from deep punctures, to large rips and
crush damage (Hutson et al., 1997; Pineda, Hutson, Anglin,
Flynn, & Russel, 1996). Additionally, suspects bitten by police
dogs are usually bitten multiple times (Meade, 2006).
Fortunately, to date only one documented death as a result of a
police canine apprehension exists in the United States.
There is ample literature, scholarly and practitioner alike that
completely support the use of a trained dog to locate a hidden
suspect. In most cases, the dog is tethered to the handler
through the use of a long leash. However, there are a number of
tactical disadvantages in this arrangement, which include the
potential for the leash to become entangled in heavy brush. In
these cases, it becomes a handler’s discretion as to whether or
not the dog should be kept on lead. Certainly, suspect related
factors such as the severity of the crime, if the suspect
possesses a weapon, and prior knowledge of the suspect would
be weighed heavily in this decision-making process. However,
environmental factors related to the risk of conducting the
search such as darkness, availability of back-up officers, limited
visibility, and an abundance of potential concealment areas for
the suspect also would influence the discretion of the canine
handler.
The use of force by the suspect (including passive resistance and
flight) is a significant predictor of force by officers (Holmes,
1997). This relationship between suspect behavior and final
outcomes appears to be consistent in canine deployments as
well (Campbell, Berk & Fyfe, 1998). Often, a bite ratio is used as
a barometer or early warning system for misconduct. This ratio
is determined by comparing the number of bites to the number
of apprehensions and can be illustrated in formula as: [a /a+b],
where a = the number of apprehensions with bites and b = the
number of apprehensions without bites.
Unfortunately, this system does not take into account factors
such as the assignment of the dog or the amount of time that
specific dogs are requested to accomplish certain tasks. For
example, if a canine were assigned to an auto theft unit for the
purpose of apprehending suspects that flee from stolen cars,
the
bite-ratio would be substantially higher than another canine
assigned a less aggressive assignment involving less risk for
physical confrontation. Additionally, the number of violent
offenders versus property crime offenders might not be factored
into this analysis (Eden, 1993).
As a result of this weakness, the value of the bite-ratio is
significantly reduced. Supporting this position is the
International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP) concepts and
issues paper Law Enforcement Canines (2001), which states:
“Reliance on formulas or ratios alone can often inappropriately
and unfairly simplify an otherwise complex problem. In reality,
each canine bite or canine-produced injury should be
individually evaluated to determine whether it was justified in
the total context of the situation and the manner in which the
canine was handled” (p.19).
When dealing with a small number of cases, it is very easy for
the bite ratio to be heavily influenced by even a small number of
bites. A new canine handler that has made only one
apprehension and is unfortunate enough to be forced to have
the canine make physical contact or bite the suspect would have
a 100% bite ratio, which is certainly high by any standard. Over
time and with additional apprehensions, the bite ratio would
likely become smaller. This is problematic for smaller agencies
that may not have the level of activity to provide a sufficiently
large denominator for the bite ratio to have any value. For these
agencies, it becomes necessary to examine each case to
determine the level of appropriateness.
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.
-------------------------------------------------
-----------------------
Looking for simple solutions to your real-life financial
challenges? Check out WalletPop for the latest news and
information, tips and calculators.
__._,_.___
Messages in this topic (1) Reply (via web post) | Start a new topic
Messages | Links | Database | Polls | Calendar
To Post a message, send it to: uspca@eGroups.com
To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: uspca-
unsubscribe@eGroups.com
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest |
Switch format to Traditional
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe
Recent Activity
4
New Members
Visit Your Group
Yahoo! Groups
w/ John McEnroe
Join the All-Bran
Day 10 Club.
Healthy Living
Learn to live life
to the fullest
on Yahoo! Groups.
Need traffic?
Drive customers
With search ads
on Yahoo!
List Members complete study released last week and attached in
a pdf. I have also just attached the part dealing just with Police
Dogs, the complete study itself is over 100 pages. K-9 appears
to me to have faired well.
Russ
Less Lethal Weapon Effectiveness, Use of Force, and Suspect &
Officer Injuries: A Five-Year Analysis
A report to the National Institute of Justice
CHARLIE MESLOH Florida Gulf Coast University
MARK HENYCH Advanced Research Solutions
ROSS WOLF University of Central Florida
Police Dogs
Based upon case law and the definition of deadly force, the law
enforcement canine also falls into the category of a less-lethal
technology. Unfortunately, as a biological technology, it does
not easily fit into one of the existing categories. As a result,
most force continuums do not address the police dog as an
instrument of force. Accordingly, it is the canine handler on the
scene that must know the level of force that his or her particular
dog is capable of producing (Mesloh, 2006).
Given that a German shepherd can exert a bite force of 1500 psi
(Hutson et al., 1997), the potential for serious injury is great.
These injuries range from deep punctures, to large rips and
crush damage (Hutson et al., 1997; Pineda, Hutson, Anglin,
Flynn, & Russel, 1996). Additionally, suspects bitten by police
dogs are usually bitten multiple times (Meade, 2006).
Fortunately, to date only one documented death as a result of a
police canine apprehension exists in the United States.
There is ample literature, scholarly and practitioner alike that
completely support the use of a trained dog to locate a hidden
suspect. In most cases, the dog is tethered to the handler
through the use of a long leash. However, there are a number of
tactical disadvantages in this arrangement, which include the
potential for the leash to become entangled in heavy brush. In
these cases, it becomes a handler’s discretion as to whether or
not the dog should be kept on lead. Certainly, suspect related
factors such as the severity of the crime, if the suspect
possesses a weapon, and prior knowledge of the suspect would
be weighed heavily in this decision-making process. However,
environmental factors related to the risk of conducting the
search such as darkness, availability of back-up officers, limited
visibility, and an abundance of potential concealment areas for
the suspect also would influence the discretion of the canine
handler.
The use of force by the suspect (including passive resistance and
flight) is a significant predictor of force by officers (Holmes,
1997). This relationship between suspect behavior and final
outcomes appears to be consistent in canine deployments as
well (Campbell, Berk & Fyfe, 1998). Often, a bite ratio is used as
a barometer or early warning system for misconduct. This ratio
is determined by comparing the number of bites to the number
of apprehensions and can be illustrated in formula as: [a /a+b],
where a = the number of apprehensions with bites and b = the
number of apprehensions without bites.
Unfortunately, this system does not take into account factors
such as the assignment of the dog or the amount of time that
specific dogs are requested to accomplish certain tasks. For
example, if a canine were assigned to an auto theft unit for the
purpose of apprehending suspects that flee from stolen cars,
the bite-ratio would be substantially higher than another canine
assigned a less aggressive assignment involving less risk for
physical confrontation. Additionally, the number of violent
offenders versus property crime offenders might not be factored
into this analysis (Eden, 1993).
As a result of this weakness, the value of the bite-ratio is
significantly reduced. Supporting this position is the
International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP) concepts and
issues paper Law Enforcement Canines (2001), which states:
“Reliance on formulas or ratios alone can often inappropriately
and unfairly simplify an otherwise complex problem. In reality,
each canine bite or canine-produced injury should be
individually evaluated to determine whether it was justified in
the total context of the situation and the manner in which the
canine was handled” (p.19).
When dealing with a small number of cases, it is very easy for
the bite ratio to be heavily influenced by even a small number of
bites. A new canine handler that has made only one
apprehension and is unfortunate enough to be forced to have
the canine make physical contact or bite the suspect would have
a 100% bite ratio, which is certainly high by any standard. Over
time and with additional apprehensions, the bite ratio would
likely become smaller. This is problematic for smaller agencies
that may not have the level of activity to provide a sufficiently
large denominator for the bite ratio to have any value. For these
agencies, it becomes necessary to examine each case to
determine the level of appropriateness.
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.
-------------------------------------------------
-----------------------
Looking for simple solutions to your real-life financial
challenges? Check out WalletPop for the latest news and
information, tips and calculators.
__._,_.___
Messages in this topic (1) Reply (via web post) | Start a new topic
Messages | Links | Database | Polls | Calendar
To Post a message, send it to: uspca@eGroups.com
To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: uspca-
unsubscribe@eGroups.com
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest |
Switch format to Traditional
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe
Recent Activity
4
New Members
Visit Your Group
Yahoo! Groups
w/ John McEnroe
Join the All-Bran
Day 10 Club.
Healthy Living
Learn to live life
to the fullest
on Yahoo! Groups.
Need traffic?
Drive customers
With search ads
on Yahoo!
.
__,_._,___
.
__,_._,___
|
|
|
