Post on 03-Dec-2015
description
Fraudulent Use of Canines in Police Work
Daniel A. Smith Lincoln Park Police Department
School of Police Staff and Command Skip Lawver – Eastern Michigan University
Fraudulent Canine Use ii
Fraudulent Use of K-9s In Law Enforcement
I. Abstract
Though the year’s police K-9 units have been formed in many venues, cancelled
and reformed at later dates. The first police dog programs in the U.S. were begun in
1907 by the South Orange, New Jersey and the New York City Police Departments.
These programs were disbanded in 1911. Detroit Police Department added police
dogs to their force in 1917 and disbanded in 1919. they began new K-9 units in 1928
and cancelled that program in 1941 (Cite #3 From Bibliography). These early era
programs were disbanded for a host of reasons. Basically, the dogs were improperly
trained. The modern era of police dog programs has shown a tremendous increase.
Currently, there are about 6,000 K-9 units employed by law enforcement agencies.
(local, state, federal). (Canine Legal Updates and Opinions—www.k9fleck.org April
17,2004). The rise and fall of these K-9 units (as stated) is primarily due to poor
training which leads to poor performance. Many legitimate police dog programs are
being criticized by administrators because of the proliferation of fraudulent trainers
and handlers claiming their dogs can do tasks that other dogs are incapable of
performing. Administrators often read or hear about the spectacular feats of a few
dogs and handlers. They then question their departments’ canine units often asking
“Why can’t our dogs do that?”
The focus of this paper will be detailing a few of these fraudulent handlers and
then showing (scientific studies) that prove these dogs and handlers cannot perform
these fantastic feats that other police dogs can’t.
Fraudulent Canine Use iii
Table of Contents
Abstract ………………………………………………………………….…………….…ii
Introduction …………………………………………………………….…..….….……..1
Trooper John Peterson …………………………………………………………………..3
STU-100 Scent Transfer Unit …………………………………………………..….……4
Anthrax Investigation …………………………………….………………….…………..5
Sandra Anderson …………………………….……………….………………………….7
Scott Peterson ……………………………..…………….……………………………..…9
Penny Bell ……………………………..……..…………………………………………10
Russell Ebersole………………………………………………………………………....12
Conclusion ………………………………..…………………………………………….14
Bibliography …………………………………...………………………………………..16
Appendices News Week – August 12, 2002 Hunt For The Anthrax Killer ………………………………………………………….20 Police Magazine – May 2001…………………………………………….……………..24 Scent Transfer Unit 100 ………………………………………………………….……26
Fraudulent Canine Use 1
Introduction
Much of the material in this paper is based on my experience. I have been a law
enforcement officer in Lincoln Park, Michigan for twenty years. I had the privilege of
being a police K-9 handler for eight of those. My partner (Kilo) was a German Shepard
imported from Germany and was trained for narcotic detection, tracking, aggression
control, building search, area search, evidence search, and obedience. I underwent my
training at K-9 Academy in Romulus, Michigan. My initial training was two-hundred and
fifty-six hours and after certification continued training eight hours a week for the
remainder of my canine career.
The information contained in this paper is also based on extensive training,
interviews, and personal experience with Terry and Diane Shoenbach. (Owners and
training directors of the K-9 Academy). Both Terry and Diane have been handling and
training police dogs for over 30 years.
The husband and wife team have trained, certified and put in service over 150
police canine teams for local and federal law enforcement agencies.
I have also done extensive review of magazines, books, and websites leading to
the conclusions detailed in this paper.
This paper will present case studies of police and civilian handled canine units
that have led to serious problems for law enforcement agencies and detail specific ways
that law enforcement can protect themselves from civil liability, false arrests, and loss or
reversals of court decisions.
I have studied, reviewed, and will detail the following real world cases:
Fraudulent Canine Use 2
1. Trooper John Preston (Pennsylvania State Police)
2. STU-100 Scent Transfer Unit
3. Anthrax Investigation
4. Sandra Anderson
5. Scott Peterson Murder Trial
6. Penny Bell (Bloodhound Handler)
7. Russell Ebersole (explosives dog trainer Alexandria, Virginia)
Fraudulent Canine Use 3
Trooper John Preston
John Preston had a tracking dog that he claimed could follow tracks that were six
months old through a busy city (Titusville, Florida). He also claimed his dog could match
scents of individuals from crime scene evidence. John Preston also lied (on the stand)
about his training. Preston was flown around the country and used in high profile cases
by law enforcement agencies all over the United States. Convictions of suspects were
based (at times) solely on evidence supposedly uncovered by Preston’s dog.
Preston was investigated by Geraldo Rivera (early 1980) in the ABC News
Magazine 20/20. Hugh Downs and Barbara Walters also reported on this. When John
Preston was exposed as a fraud, many of the cases he was involved in were appealed.
This led to embarrassment to the police agencies that used him, reversals of cases, and
cast doubt on all of the legitimate police dogs in the country. The above information was
gained from a videotape of the 20/20 news program. Terry Shoenbach shows this
investigative report to all of his police dog handlers. The conclusion that should be
reached from this case is that a dog handler should never testify to abilities of his dog that
cannot be provided in a court ordered test.
Fraudulent Canine Use 4
STU-100 Scent Transfer Unit
Cite 1-Medico Legal Investigation od Death, March 16 & March 17,
2000 Novi, Mi.
Cite 2-Phamphlet STU-100 (Tolhurst Big “T” Enterprises Inc.)
Cite 3-Law and Order “Tracking by Scent” November 1998 Bill Clede
The STU-100 is a small machine invented by Bill Tolhurst of the Niagara County
New York Sheriffs Department. This is a collection device that supposedly extracts scent
from any material and deposits this scent on sterile gauze pads. These scent pads are then
put in plastic baggies, sealed and frozen to be used later in identifying suspects. This
identification is accomplished by letting a Bloodhound sniff the pad and matching this
scent to a suspect. Law enforcement agencies all over the United States have purchased
and are attempting to use this useless machine. The cost of this machine is $895.00, not
including shipping and insurance (See Exhibit A) (See article from Police Magazine,
May 2001). This article claims that Bloodhounds can do things that no other breeds can
do and infers that the STU-100 (previously mentioned) works. All of this in a reputable
police magazine with no scientific (or otherwise) proof mentioned.
It is my opinion, based on my knowledge and experience that this machine does
not and cannot work. More proof will be detailed at the end of this paper.
Fraudulent Canine Use 5
Anthrax Investigation
The F.B.I. in its zeal and under tremendous pressure to solve the anthrax attacker
brought in trained Bloodhounds in an attempt to match scent lifted from the anthrax
tainted letters sent to Sen. Tom Daschle and Patrick Leahy. The letters the “scent” was
lifted from were decontaminated months prior to presentation to the Bloodhounds in the
belief that the dogs could match the scent to the suspected perpetrator. According to
Newsweek, the dogs were taken to a number of places showing no reaction (Newsweek
Magazine August 12, 2002). When the dogs were brought to the apartment building
where Dr. Steven Hatfill lived (main person of interest) the dogs “went crazy”. The dogs
were also taken to Hatfill’s girlfriend’s apartment and a Denny’s Restaurant (where Dr.
Hatfill had dinner the previous evening) with the same indications when they came near
his apartment building.
As a result of these dogs “going crazy” at these locations a search warrant was
issued for Dr. Hatfill’s apartment. The search warrant showed no evidence of wrongdoing
by Dr. Hatfill. *NOTE* Search warrants can only be issued on facts based or probable
cause. In order for a dog’s indication to provide probable cause, the dog must be proven
credible and reliable.
To my knowledge, there is no scientific evidence or other evidence that dogs are
capable of “matching scents”. The above, in my opinion, is nothing but “junk science”. It
has been ruled in the courts that forensic dentistry matching bite
marks on victims to a suspect is junk science and not admissible in a trial. This
circus with the Bloodhounds are, in my opinion, the same thing. As an aside, this
Newsweek article (on Page 24) states:
Fraudulent Canine Use 6
“Bloodhounds are the only dogs whose powers of smell are admissible in court”. This is
absolutely, completely false. Dr. Hatfill has never been charged, nor has any
incriminating evidence been found.
Fraudulent Canine Use 7
Sandra Anderson
Sandra Anderson of Midland, Michigan is the best example of law enforcement
agencies (local, state, and federal) using dog handlers to assist in criminal investigations
without proper and sufficient checking of the dog handler’s qualifications. (People
Magazine Nov. 17, 2003 Bones of Contention) (Akron Beacon Journal Sept. 14, 2003)
(Detroit Free Press March 12, 2004)
Sandra Anderson had a mixed Doberman named Eagle. Eagle was believed by
law enforcement agencies around the world as the best cadaver dog there ever was.
Anderson was used extensively by the F.B.I. to search for body parts in high profile
cases. She was also used in Panama, Bosnia, and the World Trade Center after the
terrorist attacks in 2001. Anderson was profiled on the television show “Unsolved
Mysteries” and Disney Studios was planning on doing a movie about her and her wonder
dog Eagle. The F.B.I. was so impressed by her that she taught death investigation classes
for law enforcement. According to Shoenbach, the F.B.I. was warned a number of times
that Anderson was a fraud and her dog could not do what she claimed.
In April of 2002, a law enforcement officer saw Anderson remove a bone from
her boot during a search in Oscoda, Michigan, and throw it on the ground. Anderson then
claimed Eagle found another bone. This led to an extensive investigation of Anderson
and concluded with a ten count indictment in August of 2003. Anderson was charged
with evidence tampering, obstruction of justice, and lying to investigators. The
indictment claimed that Anderson fixed evidence in a number of cases in Michigan and
Ohio. The charges said she not only planted bones in the search areas, but that she also
used her own body fluids to stain a hack saw blade, money, and pieces of cloth.
Fraudulent Canine Use 8
Anderson, facing 65 years in prison, pleaded guilty to five felonies before U.S District
Judge Denise Page Hood in March 2004.
Anderson’s sentence is unclear at this time. According to Schoenbach, he believes
she was sentenced to 4 years in prison. Shoenbach says, “This is one of the most injurious
cases for law enforcement he has seen in his 30+ years of training and handling police
dogs”. There are so many twists and turns to this case that it would fill a very thick book.
There are a number of cases Anderson was involved in that are undergoing appeals at this
time.
Fraudulent Canine Use 9
Scott Peterson
Scott Peterson has been charged with murdering his wife, Laci, and unborn son
Connor in California. Tracking dogs from the California Rescue Dog Association,
handled by civilians were brought in days after Laci’s disappearance. Scent matching was
used by the handlers to attempt to find Laci and trace her path leading from her house.
One dog handler claimed Laci was driven in a car for miles to the marina Scott Peterson
claimed he went fishing from. The handler testified that her dog tracked down the middle
of the road to the marina and then stared out at the water telling the handler that Laci was
out there. (National Enquirer Jan. 6, 2004 David Wright).
Terry Shoenbach said “This whole K-9 case of these dogs reference the Scott
Peterson case is outrageous, fraudulent, and in my opinion criminal. If I didn’t think
Peterson was guilty, I would call Mark Gerragos (Scott Peterson’s attorney) and offer to
discredit all of the so-called dog evidence against Peterson. These dog handlers’
testimonies are so incredible, that I would be, for the first time in my career, a witness for
the defense”.
Fraudulent Canine Use 10
Penny Bell
Another current dog handler is beginning to be questioned by law
enforcement is a woman named Penny Bell of Milwaukee, Wisconsin. Bell Handles and
trains a Bloodhound named Hoover Von Vacuum. Penny Bell has taken Hoover on
searches for about 5 years. She claims her dog can track a human scent more than two
months old. She even claims her dog has tracked a scent that was two years old. Bell has
claimed her dog has many finds in cases she has worked. She often shows up at scenes
(uninvited) and then claims she successfully tracked a scent, found people or found
important evidence. Penny and Hoover have been involved in a case to help two families
search for their missing sons in Minnesota. The two men are Chris Jenkins, a 21 year old
University of Minnesota student, and Josh Guimond, a student at St. John’s University in
Collegeville, Minnesota.
Bell volunteered her dog’s services after seeing reports on television about the
missing boys. She claimed her dog followed a scent to an entrance ramp to I 94 in
Minneapolis. This took place two months after the boys disappearance. According to this
article, there is a John Zantke (battalion chief with Milwaukee Fire Department) that has
told police to keep her away from search scenes. Zantke says she (Bell) shows up
uninvited and contaminates search sites.
Penny Bell has taken credit for Hoover finding a body in the Menomonee River
(Milwaukee, Wisconsin) in a 1998 case. According to Zantke, Bell did not find the body
and wasn’t even close when the body was recovered.
Fraudulent Canine Use 11
Terry Shoenbach stated he is familiar with Bell and her dog. He stated there is a
lot of controversy surrounding her claims. Shoenbach says that there is no way she can do
what she claims. “This case is very similar to all the other frauds running around from
scene to scene making outrageous claims of finds. This case is very similar to John
Preston, Sandra Anderson and the dogs and handlers involved in the Scott Peterson case.
These people are not certified by any legitimate canine associates, their claims are
unsubstantiated, all they want to see is their name in the paper and (in my opinion) are
out and out liars.”
Fraudulent Canine Use 12
Russell Ebersole
Russell Ebersole a dog trainer in Winchester, Virginia, owned a dog training
business known as “Detector Dogs Against Drugs and Explosives.” Ebersole was paid
$700,000 to train 23 explosive detection dogs for the Federal Government. Ebersole also
did business with the State Department and the Federal Reserve. He was arrested after
being indicted on 26 counts of fraud and falsely filing records. Ebersole was eventually
convicted and sentenced to 18 years in jail and ordered to repay $700,000 to the Federal
Government.
Russell Ebersole was discovered to be a fraud when someone in the government
decided to test the bomb dogs he trained. Ebersole’s dogs were guarding numerous
Federal buildings in and around Washington D.C. Five tests were conducted. Two of the
tests involved loading cars with 50 pounds of dynamite and other cars with 50 pounds of
plastic explosives. These cars were the driven through checkpoints of buildings
Ebersole’s dogs were guarding. None of the 23 dogs found the explosives.
The failure of the dogs to detect the explosives led to an investigation. The
investigation revealed that Ebersole faked the dog’s and handler’s certifications and lied
about the handler’s training.
All of the above detailed cases are only a fraction of the fraudulent activities
being perpetrated on law enforcement. I examined the scientific evidence available about
the abilities of tracking dogs and their ability to match scents from articles to the person
who touched the article. All of the scientific evidence is in agreement that dogs do not
have this ability.
Fraudulent Canine Use 13
The December 1991 Newsletter Issue from Cornell University (College of
Veterinary Medicine) concluded that “individual human odors are not detected by dogs.
And there is no general scent that dogs can match with individuals”.
(Health Issues Dec. 1991).
In the book “How to Train Dogs for Police Work” (Jay Rapp; Denlinger’s
Publishers, LTD; Fairfax, Virginia; Cp. 1979) the author detailed an extensive German
Police study that concluded, “It is absolutely absurd to give a dog an article to sniff which
belongs to the person he is to locate and expect him to use this scent to pick up the
person’s track”.
In Tazlitz’s article entitled “Does the Cold Nose Know? The Unscientific Myth of
the Dog Scent Lineup” the idea that dogs can sniff an article and match the scent to the
person it belongs to is absolutely a myth and has never been proven in any scientific
controlled study. Terry Shoenbach told me that he has a standing offer that he will pay a
dog trainer or handler $5,000.00 if they can prove their dog can match scents. The offer
has never been taken up by any trainer or handler in the country. Shoenbach contributes
this to the fact that it is scientifically impossible for a dog to do this and is nothing but a
desire for publicity, a desire for fame, and in my opinion, an outright lie.
A review of the North American Police Work Dog Association, The
International Police Work Dog Association, and the United Police Canine
Associations certifications/standards reveals no test relating to scent matching or scent
line-ups. If there are no tests relating to scent matching given by the three most credible
police dog associations in the country shows that this ability by dogs does not exist.
Fraudulent Canine Use 14
Conclusion
How can law enforcement agencies prevent all the problems associated with the
use of the fraudulent dog trainers and handlers? First and foremost check backgrounds,
ask for certification from a national police dog association and beware of claims that this
dog can do things other police dogs can’t. Be extremely careful of using civilian dog
handlers. A law enforcement agency has no administrative control over a civilian and
most civilians are not trained in evidence preservation or court testimony.
According to Terry and Diane Shoenbach, the training of explosive detection dogs
is expanding by leaps and bounds since 9-11. Terry Shoenbach said that he had some
requests from law enforcement agencies to train explosive detection dogs prior to the
terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center on September 11. “I used to tell the agencies
that there wasn’t a great need for bomb dogs, and their money could be better utilized
training a narcotics detection dog. I have since changed my mind and certified 10
explosives detection dogs in the past 2 years. I handle my own trained and certified bomb
dog for Van Buren Township Police Department now.”
According to the Shoenbach, the Russell Ebersole case is only the tip of the
iceberg concerning frauds training explosive detection dogs. The demand is so great that
law enforcement agencies are going to fall victim to fraudulent people if they do not
conduct extensive research and investigations before getting a bomb dog.
I handled and trained a narcotics/patrol dog for 9 years for Lincoln Park Police
Department. One of the biggest problems I saw were very short training periods for
police dogs. There are agencies that are giving only five weeks of training to handler and
dog and then putting them on the street.
Fraudulent Canine Use 15
Shoenbach lists some of the areas to be careful about when acquiring a bomb dog. “My
personal opinion (based on training and handling for over 30 years) is to be skeptical of
pre-trained dogs, short training times, food rewards for detection dogs, and lack of
continuous maintenance training for handler and dog.”.
If it sounds too good to be true—it probably is!
Fraudulent Canine Use 16
Bibliography
1. Dan Smith-Author/Personal Experience
2. Interview-Terry and Diana Shoenbach
3. Police Dogs in North America Samuel G. Chapman
Publisher: Charles C. Thomas Cp. 1990
4. Canine Legal Updates and Opinions
Terry Fleck: Website— www.K-9Fleck.org
5. Video Tape: 20/20 Newsmagazine
Circa 1980—Geraldo Rivera
Hugh Downs/Barbara Walters
ABC News Network
6. Medico legal Investigation of Death. March 16-17, 2000.
Pamphlet: at Novi, Michigan
7. Pamphlet: STU-100 (Tollhurst Big “T” Enterprises Inc)
8. Law and Order: Magazine
“Tracking by Scent”
Nov. 1998 Bill Clede
9. Police Magazine: May 2001
Al Valdez
“Classic Canines Capture Criminals”
10. Newsweek Magazine: August 12, 2002
“Hunt for the Anthrax Killer”
Mark Miller and Daniel Klaidman
Fraudulent Canine Use 17
11. People Magazine: November 17, 2003
“Bones of Contention”
Thomas Fields-Meyer
12. Akron Beacon Journal: September 14, 2003
Associated Press
13. Detroit Free Press: March 12, 2004
Jack Kresnak
14. National Enquirer: January 6, 2004
“Heroic Tracking Dogs Prove Scott Lied to Police”
David Wright
15. Health Issues: Cornell University
College of Veterinary Medicine
December 1991
“The Incredible Range, and Limitations, of the Sense of Smell.”
16. How to Train Dogs for Police Work
Jay Rapp; Denlinger’s Publications
LTD. Fairfax, Virginia
Copyright: 1979
17. Hastings Law Review 15.
“Does the Cold Nose Know? The Unscientific Myth of the Dog Scent Lineup”.
November 1990
Andrew E. Taslitz
Fraudulent Canine Use 18
18. North American Police Work Dog Association
Certification Requirements
www.NAPWSA.com
19. United States Police Canine Association
Certification Requirements
www.USPCA.com
20. International Police Work Dog Association
Certification Requirements
www.IPWDA.com
21. Star Tribune: January 5, 2003
“Bloodhound Handler’s Credentials Questioned in Search for Missing Men.”
Author: Randy Furst
22. AP Press Release March 20, 2003
“Man Accused in Bomb-Sniffing Dogs Case.”
Fraudulent Canine Use 19
Appendices
News Week – August 12, 2002 Hunt For The Anthrax Killer ……………………………………… …….20 Police Magazine – May 2001………………………………………………24 Scent Transfer Unit 100…………………………………………………..26
Fraudulent Canine Use 20
News Week - August 12, 2002
Fraudulent Canine Use 21
Fraudulent Canine Use 22
Fraudulent Canine Use 23
Fraudulent Canine Use 24
Police Magazine - May 2001
Fraudulent Canine Use 25
Fraudulent Canine Use 26
Scent Transfer – Unit 100
Fraudulent Canine Use 27