1

pdat

e pd

ate

10

10

Scientific

Working

Establishing consensus based best practices for the use of detection teams aimed at improving

Dave KontnyKen FurtonChair Vice-Chair

DO

G U

pD

OG

Up

arch

20

arch

20 Group on

Dog &

Orthogonal detector

the consistency and performance of

deployed teams and optimizing their

combination with electronic detectors

SWG

DSW

GD

Ma

Ma

1

Guidelines

.ORG Established 2004

Jessie GrebExec. Secr.

Scientific Working Groups (SWGs) are ongoing meetings established to improve discipline practices and build consensus with international, federal, state and local partners Initially sponsored exclusively by the FBI some

What are Scientific Working Groups?What’s SWGDOG?

state, and local partners. Initially sponsored exclusively by the FBI some SWGs, including SWGDOG are collaboratively funded.

1. SWGDAM (DNA Analysis Methods)2. SWGDE (Digital Evidence)3. SWGDOC (Questioned Documents)4. SWGDRUG (Analysis of Seized Drugs)5. SWGFAST (Latent Fingerprints)6. SWGGUN (Firearms and Toolmarks)

1989

2

7. SWGIBRA (Illicit Business Records)8. SWGIT (Imaging Technologies)9. SWGMAT (Materials)10. SWGSTAIN (Bloodstain Pattern Analysis)11.11. SWGDOG (Dog and Orthogonal detector Guidelines)SWGDOG (Dog and Orthogonal detector Guidelines)12. SWGFACT (Forensic Analysis of Chemical Terrorism)13. SWGMGF (Microbial Genetics and Forensics)

present

2

Why was SWGDOG established?

In order to benefit local, state, federal and international law enforcement agencies by improvements in the performance and overall reliability of d t t d d th i ti i d bi ti ith l t i d t tidetector dogs and their optimized combination with electronic detection devices.

SWGDOG benefits: national security, border protection, drug and contraband interdiction, law enforcement and criminal investigations, disaster response

3

disaster response

Establishing best practices for detection teams improves interdiction efforts as well as courtroom acceptance of dog alert evidence by improving the consistency and performance of deployed detector dogs.

GC/MS GC/ECD GC/Lum. MS HPLC CE

Gas Liquid

Separation

MEMS

beads

Dogs

SAW

IMS

Trans/Refl. Nonlinear i

Optical

Orthogonal Detection

Techniques

beads

thin films

nanoclusters

Rats

Bees

Electronic noses Biosensors

LIDAR A /

polymersPlants

CARS Phase Coherent

spectroscopy opticsDIAL/DIRL

RamanUV/Vis OAIR

Wh i c h N o s e K n o w s B e s t ?

3

SWGDOG was established as the reliability of detector dogs were increasingly under attack due to limited peer reviewed research and lack of best practices for the certification of teams

• 2nd District Court of Appeal, Matheson v. Florida, August 1, 2003. “Razor’s reliability for detecting the presence of contraband in the field was unguaged… In light of these facts, Razor’s alert could not have given the g g g , gdeputies probable cause to search under any test. ”

• “Dog Trainer Given Maximum Sentence for Fraud: … Convicted of Providing Bomb-Sniffing Dogs that Couldn’t Smell Out Explosives” Washington Post, September 8, 2003

• “Bones of Contention: Cadaver-sniffing canine’s finds are under suspicion” Detroit Free Press, July 14, 2003.

• "Scott Peterson's defense takes bite out of canine's tracking skills",

5

Scott Peterson s defense takes bite out of canine s tracking skills , CourtTV.com, Sept. 1, 2004. Where the defense attorney pointed out that a supervisor of the Contra Costa County search and rescue team said in a preliminary hearing that dog tracking was "not a science. It's an art.“

•“Critics say it's `scent' evidence that's suspect - Some - including jurors -doubt the bloodhound science used against a man awaiting possible retrial in Riverside serial arson.”, LA Times, March 9, 2007.

Agency CNCA IFRI/NFSTC NAPWDA NNDDA PNWDDA USPCA

Target OdorsMa, Co, Me,

He, Op Ma, Co, Me,

He, Ha, X, OpMa, Co, Me,

He, OpMa, Co, Me,

He, OpMa/Ha, Co/Cr,

Me, He Ma/Ha, Co,

Me, He

Mass range 5g - 2kg 1g - 1kg Not specified 7g - 28g 3.5g - 900g ≥ 5g

What constitutes acceptable performance and how is it measured?... Well, it depends on who you ask… Here are

examples of different drug dog certification standards from 2005:

g g g g g p g g g g g

# of search areas

Not specified≥ 2 types of

areas≥ 3

≤ 2 sections of a building. One for each type of drug.

33 rooms and 5

vehicles

Total # hides Not specified 10 12 ≥4 10 4

Passing

≥ 50%: At least 1 of 2 finds / area. Ma, Co, Me, He m st be ≥ 90% of at

≥ 91.6%: 11 out of 12 finds. No

more than 1 FN

acceptable.

≥75%: 3 out of 4 finds (if

only Ma and Co). No more

than 1 FN

≥ 90%: 9 out of 10 finds. 2 FP's or 1 FP

≥70%: 140 out of 200 pts grading various

aspects of dog and

6

Passing Guidelines

He must be found. Team

must locate at least 1 find in 100% of the areas.

≥ 90% of at least 10 finds.

pCertification is specified

per drug. (One can be certified in

any of up to 4 drugs).

acceptable. Ma and Co

must be found. Other

drugs are optional.

and 1 FN = fail. Ma, Co, Me, He must

be found.

dog and handler. 2 hides are Ma/Ha. 2 hides are

chosen from: Co, Me, He.

4

Just as there are a multitude of components that can be fashioned into a reliable electronic detection instrument (GC/MS),there are a multitude of dog breeds and training techniques that can yield a reliable biological detector (detector dog)

Sex

Trainingl h

Alerti d

Rewarddelivery

Rewardtype

Training

Primary

Secondary

Active/Scratch

Food vs play/praise

Male

Female

400 hrs in 5 weeks

7

length

BreedAidsused

Howsearch

trainedIssue

Actual vs Pseudo substance

Passive/Sit/Bark

Large breed

Small breed

On-lead search

Off-lead search

400 hrs in 10 weeks

•The bottom line is that you will find outstanding detector dogs of every

In the end it is the performance that matters…

outstanding detector dogs of every possible combination of sex, breed, color, size, temperament, training length, reward type, reward system, alert used, search method and aids employed.

•The focus, in the end, should be on how a team performs after initial training during

8

team performs after initial training, during documented maintenance training and upon annual re-certifications following consensus best practices to allow comparison with other teams.

5

• FIU/IFRI houses research programs in instrumental and K9 detection since 1994 and, working with the NFSTC, piloted a canine trainer and detection team certification program in 1998 with independent scientific validation.

• From 1999-2003 the Interpol European Working Group on the Use of

Standardization events leading up to establishing SWGDOG

Police Dogs in Crime Investigation (IEWGPR), Chaired by Jan C. Zoodsma, completed recommendations aimed at improving the efficiency of the use of police dogs.

• At the 2nd and 3rd National Detector Dog Conferences in 2001 and 2003 held in Miami Beach co-hosted by FIU and Auburn University, general best practices for detector dog teams were drafted and discussed.

• There were some standardization efforts in the U.S. by major police working dog associations and federal programs such as the TSA and ATF but no consensus best practices guidelines available

9

but no consensus best practices guidelines available.

• Initial planning for SWGDOG began on 6/30/2003 with a SWGDOG organizational meeting held on 1/15/04 and bylaws ratified on 9/1/04 by the Executive Board, which included the chair of the IEWGPR.

• In 2005, funding was secured by the NIJ, FBI and DHS, 55 SWGDOG members were selected and meetings began in September 2005. An essential aspect of SWGDOG is local, state, national and international representation.

The vision of the Scientific Working Group on Dog and Orthogonal*

SWGDOG Vision

Group on Dog and Orthogonal* detector Guidelines (SWGDOG) is to enhance the performance of detector dog teams and optimize their combination with electronic sensors

10

*Orthogonal defined as mutually independent methods of detecting items of interest such as using different detection and identification modalities.

6

SWGDOG Mission

• To discuss and share ideas regarding methods, protocols, quality assurance, education and research

• To bring together organizations and/or individuals actively pursuing relevant analysis methods

T t ith th ti l d i t ti l i ti• To cooperate with other national and international organizations in developing relevant standards

• To monitor and disseminate research and technology related to the discipline

• To recommend and disseminate consensusconsensus--based best practice based best practice guidelinesguidelines for quality assurance and quality control

• To maintain a centralized web site for ongoing information

11

SWGDOG is a collaboratively funded effort of the FBI, NIJ and DHSSWGDOG is a collaboratively funded effort of the FBI, NIJ and DHS

g gexchange and dissemination

SWGDOG Best Practices

SWGDOG is not a certification group; it is a Scientific Working Group. As such, its mandate focuses on the meld of what’s known scientifically and how to use this knowledge to augment the skills of canine handlers and supervisors within the law enforcement community and private sector.y p

A standard can be defined as an established or widely recognized model of authority or excellence, as a reference point against which other things can be evaluated, or the ideal in terms of which something can be judged (http://dictionary.die.net). Standards usually define or establish uniform specification or characteristics for products or services (http://stats.oecd/org/glossary).

12

A minimum standard is defined as the lowest acceptable criteria that define or establish uniform specification or characteristics for products or services.

7

A best practice asserts that there is a technique, method, process, activity, incentive or reward that is more effective at delivering a particular outcome than any other version of these.

Inherent in the best practice concept is a system of processes, checks and testing that will deliver an outcome that has fewer problems and fewer unforeseen complications.

Best practices combine the attributes of most efficient and most effective pways of accomplishing a task based on proven and provable methods.

In best practices documentation is essential and best practices must be documented and distributed before they can be used, cited, and improved upon, so they actually encourage continuous improvement.

Best practices, regardless of the field in which they are applied, are usually considered to have 5 components:

1 Best skills

13

1. Best skills2. Processes3. Solutions4. Appropriate resources and 5. The continuous improvement that results from the first 4 of these

components. (http://www.walden3d.com/best_practices/documentation.html ).

Note that best practices are not rules, laws or standards which people are required to follow but rather are those processes, practices and systems widely recognized as improving an organization’s or field’s performance and efficiency. This means you can meet a standard in the field but still not observe best practices.

It is anticipated that these best practices will be incorporated into organization’s p p p gcertification standards and self-improving systems will be identified. • Professional canine organizations may choose to incorporate these best

practices into their certifications protocols – this is already happening with various organizations.

• If an accreditation process comes to exist, many organizations will likely participate – this has occurred with best practices from working groups in other fields.

• If departments wishing to incorporate these best practices have difficulty d i d t i t th fi d t k thi

14

doing so due to size, resources, etc. they may find a way to make this occur by co-operating with other groups, forming a broader network, or take advantage of grant opportunities which will likely be expanded.

• The legal community will have a vested interest in ensuring that mechanisms are in place by which certification, adequate for legal standards, can occur when detector dogs are used in investigations.

8

Unifiedterminology

Subcommittees

Scientific

Working

G Min. StandardsSelection of dogs

Selection of handlers

Kenneling, health carePresenting evidence in court

Research and Technology

Group on

Dog &

Orthogonal detector

G

15

Training and certification of Substance dogs: Explosives, Arson, Drugs

Scent dogs: Tracking, Trailing, Scent ID, SARKnowledge Management

Guidelines

Chair/exec cmt assign task to

Subcommittee d d ft

SWGDOG members i d ft

Subcommittee i d ft

SWGDOG members SWGDOG Exec

¾ vote ¾ vote requiredrequired

Unanimous Unanimous vote req.vote req.

SWGDOG WorkflowProcess

Before and Before and at meetingat meeting

At SWGDOG At SWGDOG meetingmeeting

Target Target < 1 month< 1 month

assign task to subcommittee

produces draft document

review draft document

revises draft document

vote to approve draft

Board votes to approve draft

Guideline

14 days 14 days

Unanimous Unanimous vote req.vote req.

¾ vote ¾ vote requiredrequired 6 month 6 month

processprocess

16

Subcommittee revises document as necessary

SWGDOG members vote to approve final document

SWGDOG Exec Board votes to approve final document

Public comments on draft

Guideline disseminated

14 days 14 days 60 days Target < 3 weeksTarget < 3 weeks

If significant revisions to the content are madeIf significant revisions to the content are made

9

1st SWGDOG Members Meeting, San Antonio, TX 9/18/05-9/21/05

SWGDOG Meetings Year 1 (8/1/05-7/31/06)

1. Unification of terminology (Part A Draft)2. General guidelines for training, certification, maintenance and

documentation (Draft)3. Selection of serviceable dogs and replacement systems (Draft)

2nd SWGDOG Members Meeting, Burbank, CA 4/2/06-4/4/061. Unification of terminology (Part A approved, Part B draft)2 General guidelines for training certification maintenance and

17

2. General guidelines for training, certification, maintenance and documentation (Approved)

3. Selection of serviceable dogs and replacement systems (Draft)4. Kenneling, keeping, and health care (Draft)5. Selection and training of handlers and instructors (Draft)6. Procedures on presenting evidence in court (Draft)

3rd SWGDOG Members Meeting, Philadelphia, PA 9/11/06-9/13/061. Unification of terminology (Part B approved, Part C draft)3. Selection of serviceable dogs and replacement systems

(approved)

SWGDOG Meetings Year 2 (8/1/06-7/31/07)

( pp )4. Kenneling, keeping, and health care (approved)5. Selection and training of handlers and instructors (approved)6. Procedures on presenting evidence in court (approved)7. Research and technology (draft)8. Substance detector dogs (drafts)9. Scent dogs (drafts)

4th SWGDOG Members Meeting Burbank CA 3/10/07 3/14/07

18

4th SWGDOG Members Meeting, Burbank, CA 3/10/07-3/14/071. Unification of terminology (Part C approved, part D draft)7. Research and technology (approval)8. Substance detector dogs: Agriculture; Arson; Chem./Bio.;

Drugs; Explosives; Human remains; Other/Misc. (drafts)9. Scent dogs: Scent identification; Search and Rescue; Trailing

dogs; Tracking dogs (drafts)

10

5th SWGDOG Meeting, Fredericksburg, VA 8/12/07 - 8/16/071. Unification of terminology (Part D approved, Part E draft)2. General guidelines for training, certification, maintenance and

documentation (1st revision draft)8. Substance detector dogs: Agriculture; Arson; Drugs; Explosives;

SWGDOG Meetings Year 3 (8/1/07-7/31/08)

8. Substance detector dogs: Agriculture; Arson; Drugs; Explosives; (approved); Chem/Bio; Human Remains (draft)

9. Scent dogs: Scent identification; Search and Rescue (approved); Trailing dogs; Tracking dogs (draft)

6th SWGDOG Meeting, Dallas, TX 3/9/08 – 3/12/081. Unification of terminology (Part E approved, part F draft)2. General guidelines for training, certification, maintenance and

d t ti (1 t i i d)

19

documentation (1st revision approved)3. Selection of serviceable dogs and replacement systems (1st

revision draft)8. Substance detector dogs: Chem./Bio.?; Human remains; (appr)9. Scent dogs: Trailing dogs; Tracking dogs (approved); (draft)

7th SWGDOG Meeting, Fredericksburg, VA 8/13/08 - 8/17/081. Unification of terminology (Part F approved, Part G draft)2. General guidelines for training, certification, maintenance and

documentation (2nd revision draft)8. Substance detector dogs: Human Remains (draft)

SWGDOG Meetings Year 4 (8/1/08-7/31/09)

8. Substance detector dogs: Human Remains (draft)9. Scent dogs: Scent identification; Trailing dogs; Tracking dogs

(draft)

8th SWGDOG Meeting, Dallas, TX 3/1/09 – 3/5/091. Unification of terminology (Part G approved, Part H draft)2. General guidelines for training, certification, maintenance and

documentation (2nd revision approval)8 S b t d t t d H R i ( l)

20

8. Substance detector dogs: Human Remains (approval)9. Scent dogs: Scent identification; Trailing dogs; Tracking dogs

(draft)

11

9th SWGDOG Meeting, Tampa, FL 9/13/08 - 8/17/081. Unification of terminology (Part G approval, Part H approval,

Part I draft)2. General guidelines for training, certification, maintenance and

documentation (2nd revision approval)

SWGDOG Meetings Year 5 (8/1/09-7/31/10) and beyond

documentation (2 revision approval)5. Selection and training of handlers and instructors (Part B, draft)8. Substance detector dogs: Human Remains (approval);

Agriculture; Arson; Drugs; Explosives; (2nd revision draft)9. Scent dogs: Scent identification; Trailing dogs; Tracking dogs

(draft)

10th SWGDOG Meeting, February 28th-March 4th, 20101 U ifi ti f t i l (P t I l P t J d ft)

21

1. Unification of terminology (Part I approval, Part J draft)5. Selection & training of handlers & instructors (Part B, approval)7. Research & Technology (1st revision draft)9. Scent Dogs: Scent identification; Trailing/Tracking ; Location

Checks; Searching for live people; Wilderness area search (approval)

10. Knowledge management (PowerPoint draft, branding materials drafts)

SWGDOG Executive BoardKenneth Furton, PhD, SWGDOG Chair; Dean, College of Arts & Sciences, FIU; Chair, SC1 (Terminology); Oversees committee assignments and general SWGDOG management

David Kontny, SWGDOG Vice-Chair; Senior Advisor, DHS Office for Bombing Prevention; Chair,SC8 (Substance detector dogs); Chair of Membership Committee

Rex Stockham, Supervisory Special Agent, Forensic Canine Program Manager; FBI Evidence Response Unit; Chair, SC2 (General Guidelines); FBI SWG liaisonp ; , ( );

Terry Anderson, President, National Police Canine Association (NPCA); Chair SC10 (Knowledge Management)

Don Blair, K9 Training Specialist, Breeding Program Manager, Customs & Border Protection; Chair, SC3 (Selection of Serviceable Dogs).

Robert Gillette, DVM, MS, Director, Veterinary Sports Medicine Program, Auburn University; Chair, SC4 (Kenneling & health care).

J h P Di t T i i & O ti C i D t ti T i i C t

22

John Pearce, Director, Training & Operations, Canine Detection Training Center, Auburn University; Chair, SC5 (Selection of handlers & instructors).

Mark Rispoli, JD, SWGDOG Legal Counsel; Chair, SC6 (Presenting evidence in court).

Melissa Stormer, CEO, Great Lakes Nutrition, Inc.; Chair, SC7 (Research & Technology).

Jan Zoodsma, Former Commander Canine Unit, Netherlands National Police, Chairman IEWGPD; Chair, SC9 (Scent Dogs).

Jessie Greb, SWGDOG Executive Secretary, Florida International University.

12

SWGDOG requires participation from local, state, national and international members. Some of the organizations the 55 SWGDOG members belong to include:

State/Local K9 Orgs/Corp. Int’l/Univ. Federal

Cincinnati Police Dept. CNCA Auburn Univ. ATF

City of Everett Police, WA Global Training Acad. Australian Customs DEA

El Dorado Co. Sherriff IPWDA Dstl (UK) DHS-OBP( )

Erie Fire Dept. Great Lakes Nutrition, Inc. Finnish Nat’l Police DHS-S&T

Fayette Co Sheriff, TN Hills Pet Nutrition, Inc. Fla. Int’l Univ. DoD

Honolulu Police Dept. K9 Search Assoc. Leiden Univ. FBI

Iowa Co. Sheriff Dept. NAPWDA Netherlands Nat’l Police FEMA

KY State ME’s Office NASAR RCMP (Canada) NIST

Kalamazoo Co. Sheriff NNDDA TSA

Las Vegas Police Nomadics, Inc. USAO

23

LE Utah Attorney Gen NPBA USCBP

Long Beach PD, CA NPCA

Los Angeles DA’s Office PNWDDA

S. Pasadena PD, CA USPCA

San Diego Police Dept. Vohne Liche Kennels

Suffolk Co. NYPD

Sumner Co. Sherriff Ofc.

1. Unification of terminology (Part A - April ‘06; Part B - October ‘06; Part C - March ‘07; Part D - August ’07; Part E - March ’08; Part F – September ’08; Part G – March ’09; Part H – September ’09; Part I – March ’10; Part

Summary of SWGDOG Subcommittees and target timetables for best practice guideline

pJ – September ‘10);

2. General guidelines for training, certification, maintenance and documentation (April ‘06) - Publication in FSC October ’06; First Revision (September ’08); Second Revision (September ‘09)

3. Selection of serviceable dogs and replacement systems (October ‘06) Anticipated Publication in FSC October ‘08

4. Kenneling, keeping, and health care (October ‘06)5. Selection and training of handlers and instructors (Part A - October ’06;

Part B – March ‘10)

24

Part B – March 10)6. Procedures on presenting evidence in court (October ‘06)7. Research and technology (March ’07; First Revision September ‘10)8. Substance dogs: Agriculture; Arson; Drugs; Explosives; (August ‘07)

Chem./Bio.; Human remains (September ’09);9. Scent dogs: Scent identification; Search and Rescue; Trailing dogs;

Tracking dogs (Part A - March ‘07; Part B – August ’07;Part C – March ’08; Part D – September ’08; Part E –September ’09; Part F – March ‘10)

13

What SWGDOG Isn’t…

A mandate. SWGDOG is developing scientifically-supported, consensus-based, best practice guidelines to be made available as a resource for the entire detection community. There is no mandate for any organization to change its policies and practices.

A new certification organization. SWGDOG is not in the certification business. However, certificate-granting agencies and organizations may choose to become accredited if an independent accrediting body is ever established following the SWGDOG guidelines (this has happened with other working groups).

An elitist organization unresponsive to the community As a practical

25

An elitist organization, unresponsive to the community. As a practical matter, SWGDOG has a limited membership of 55 to balance diversity with a manageable working size. Every effort has been made to ensure a diverserepresentation of agency affiliation, area of expertise, job function, and geographical location. Furthermore, public comment is a critical part of creating the guidelines. All draft guidelines will be available to the public via the SWGDOG website for comment for at least 60 days.

How does SWGDOG make an impact on improving canine detection in a broad sense?

Following the lead of other working groups, accreditation is key…

SWGDOG consensus-based best practices

Independent body accredits certificate - granting agencies/ organizations whose

own certification guidelines meet or exceed consensus best practices

Feedback from practitioners and

various other stakeholders

26A similar process was implemented for forensic education in 2004A similar process was implemented for forensic education in 2004

Accredited certificate - granting agencies/ organizations carry out unbiased certification s using reliable source of odor samples / proficiency tests and continue to

issue their own certificates

Annual recertifications and replacement of

training aids

14

Member’s Meeting

27

Member’s Meeting

Tools to Facilitate Workflow Hosting SWGDOG face to face meetings Toll-free teleconferencing

H ti f b ti Hosting of web meetings E-mail/listserve Day to day coordination of communication and

assistance in adherence to timetables for the subcommittee chairs, members and nominees

Website hosting Secure side: e-meetings, drafts in progress,

28

Secure side: e meetings, drafts in progress, security sensitive information www.swgdog.net

Open side: draft documents for public comment, work product dissemination www.swgdog.orgwith over 40,000 hits since 2006 and over 3000 hits per month when documents are up for comment.

15

All guidelines published on web at www.swgdog.org and also published in Forensic Science C i ti d illCommunications and will be compiled in a CRC book “Detector Dogs: From Procurement to Prosecution” with planned publication when guidelines are

29

when guidelines are completed for each area on all nine subcommittees.

30

PLEASE VISIT PLEASE VISIT WWW.SWGDOG.ORGWWW.SWGDOG.ORG REGULARLY REGULARLY 2 months public comment is critical to the process!2 months public comment is critical to the process!