Upload
nguyenminh
View
214
Download
2
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
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!