Efficacy of drug detection by fully-trained police dogs varies by breed, training level, type of drug and search environment

Forensic Science International

Volumn 237, Issue , 2014, Pages 112-118

  Jezierski, Tadeusz ^a   Adamkiewicz, Ewa ^a   Walczak, Marta ^a   Sobczyńska, Magdalena ^a   Górecka Bruzda, Aleksandra ^a   Ensminger, John ^b   Papet, Eugene ^c  

^a INSTITUTE OF GENETICS AND ANIMAL BREEDING   (Poland)

^b Delta Hedge Consulting   (United States)

^c K9 Resources   (United States)

Author keywords

Dogs; Drug detection; Efficacy

Indexed keywords

AMPHETAMINE; CANNABIS; COCAINE; DIAMORPHINE; ILLICIT DRUG; STREET DRUG;

ANIMAL BEHAVIOR; ANIMAL EXPERIMENT; ANIMAL TESTING REFINEMENT; ARTICLE; DOG; DOG BREED; DRUG DETERMINATION; FEMALE; FORENSIC IDENTIFICATION; GERMAN SHEPHERD; LABRADOR RETRIEVER; MALE; NONHUMAN; ODOR RECOGNITION TEST; POLICE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; SPANIEL; TASK PERFORMANCE; TERRIER; TRAINING; ANIMAL; HUMAN; ODOR;

ANIMALS; BEHAVIOR, ANIMAL; DOGS; HUMANS; ODORS; POLICE; SMELL; STREET DRUGS;

EID: 84896098946     PISSN: 03790738     EISSN: 18726283     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.forsciint.2014.01.013     Document Type: Article

References (42)

1. Leitch O., Anderson A., Kirkbride K.P., Lennard C. Biological organisms as volatile compounds detectors. Forensic Sci. Int. 2013, 232:92-103.
2. Lorenzo N., Wan T.L., Harper R.J., Hsu Y.L., Chow M., Rose S., Furton K.G. Laboratory and field experiments used to identify Canis lupus var. familiaris active odor signature chemicals from drugs, explosives, and humans. Anal. Bioanal. Chem. 2003, 376:1212-1224.
3. Ensminger J. Development of police and military dog functions. Police and Military Dogs 2012, 3-17. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL. J. Ensminger (Ed.).
4. Waggoner L.P., Johnston J.M., Williams M., Jackson J., Jones M., Boussom T., Petrousky J.A. Canine olfactory sensitivity to cocaine hydrochloride and methyl benzoate. Proceedings SPIE 2937, Chemistry- and Biology-Based Technologies for Contraband Detection, 216 1997, 10.1117/12.266775.
5. Waggoner L.P., Jones M., Williams M., Johnston J.M., Edge C.C., Petrousky J.A. Effects of extraneous odors on canine detection. Proceedings SPIE 3575, Enforcement and Security Technologies, 355 1998, 10.1117/12.335008.
6. Furton K.G., Myers L.J. The scientific foundation and efficacy of the use of canines as chemical detectors for explosives. Talanta 2001, 54:487-500.
7. Furton K.G., Hong Y., Hsu Y., Luo T., Rose S., Walton J. Identification of odor signature chemicals in cocaine using solid-phase microextraction-gas chromatography and detector-dog response to isolated compounds spiked on U.S. currency. J. Chromatogr. Sci. 2002, 40:147-155.
8. Altom E.K., Davenport G.M., Myers L.J., Cummins K.A. Effect of dietary fat source and exercise on odorant-detecting ability of canine athletes. Res. Vet. Sci. 2003, 75(2):149-155.
9. Helton W.S. Overview of scent detection work. Issues and opportunities. Canine Ergonomics: The Science of Working Dogs 2009, 83-97. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL. W.S. Helton (Ed.).
10. Hickey S., Mcilwraith F., Bruno R., Matthews A., Alati R. Drug detection dogs in Australia: more bark than bite?. Drug Alcohol Rev. 2012, 31:778-783.
11. Ensminger J. Judicial admissibility of canine detection evidence. Police and Military Dogs 2012, 117-146. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL. J. Ensminger (Ed.).
12. Dunn M., Degenhardt L. The use of drug detection dogs in Sydney, Australia. Drug Alcohol Rev. 2009, 28:658-662.
13. Dray A., Perez P., Moore D., Dietze P., Brammer G., Jenkinson R., Siokou C., Green R., Hudson S.L., Maher L. Are drug detection dogs and mass-media campaigns likely to be effective policy responses to psychostimulant use and related harm? Results from an agent-based simulation model. Int. J. Drug Policy 2012, 23:148-153.
14. Lit L., Schweitzer J., Oberbauer A. Handler beliefs affect scent detection dog outcomes. Anim. Cogn. 2011, 14:387-394.
15. Brooks S.E., Oi F.M., Koehler P.G. Ability of canine termite detectors to locate live termites and discriminate them from non-termite material. J. Econ. Entomol. 2003, 96(4):1259-1266.
16. Walker D.B., Walker J.C., Cavnar P.J., Taylor J.L., Pickel D.H., Hall S.B., Suarez J.C. Naturalistic quantification of Canine olfactory sensitivity. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2006, 97:241-254.
17. Hunter D. Comment: common scents: establishing a presumption of reliability for detector dog teams used in airports in light of the current terrorist threat. Dayton Law Rev. 2002, 28:89.
18. Zarzadzenie Nr.296. (2008) Komendanta Głównego Policji z dnia 20 marca 2008 w sprawie metod i form wykonywania zadań z użyciem psów służbowych, szczegółowych zasad ich szkolenia oraz norm wyżywienia (Ordinance of the Supreme Commandant of the Police, No. 296 of March 20, 2008 concerning methods and forms of accomplishing tasks using service dogs and detailed principles of dog training and feeding norms).
19. Williams M., Johnston J.M., Waggoner L.P., Cicoria M. Canine substance detection: operational capabilities. Proceedings of the 1999 ONDCP International Technology Symposium 1999.
20. Macias M.S., Furton K.G. Availability target odor compounds from seized ecstasy tablets for canine detection. J. Forensic Sci. 2011, 56(6):1594-1600.
21. C.H. Dowell, U.S. Custom and Border Protection Canine Enforcement Training Center Front Royal, Virginia December 2004, NIOS Health Hazard Evaluation Report 2004-0012-2948.
22. Williams M., Johnston J.M. Training and maintaining the performance of dogs (Canis familiaris) on an increasing number of odor discriminations in a controlled setting. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2002, 78:55-65.
23. Hepper P.G., Wells D.L. How many footsteps do dogs need to determine the direction of an odour trail?. Chem. Senses 2005, 30:291-298.
24. Craven M.A., Paterson E.G., Settles G.S. The fluid dynamics of canine olfaction: unique nasal airflow patterns as an explanation of macrosmia. J. Royal Soc. Interface 2010, 7:933-943.
25. Macias M.S., Guerra-Diaz P., Almirall J.R., Furton K.G. Detection of piperonal emitted from polymer controlled odor mimic permeation systems utilizing Canis familiaris and solid phase microextraction-ion mobility spectrometry. Forensic Sci. Int. 2010, 195:132-138.
26. Villareal B.L., Gordillo J.L. Perception aptitude improvement of an odor sensor: model for a biologically inspired nose. 5th Mexocan Conference Pattern Recognition 2013, Lecture Notes in Computer Sci 2013, vol. 7914:126-135. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Heidelberg.
27. Scheider L., Kaminski J., Call J., Tomasello M. Do dogs interpret pointing as a command?. Anim. Cogn. 2013, 16:361-372.
28. Marshall-Pescini S., Passalacqua C., Barnard S., Valsecchi P., Prato-Previde E. Agility and search and rescue training differently affects pet dogs' behaviour in socio-cognitive tasks. Behav. Process. 2009, 81:416-422.
29. Lasseter A.E., Jacobi K.P., Farley R., Hensel L. Cadaver dog and handler team capabilities in the recovery of buried human remains in the Southeastern United States. J. Forensic Sci. 2003, 48(3):1-5.
30. Quignon P., Rimbault M., Robin S., Galibert F. Genetics of canine olfaction and receptor diversity. Mamm. Genome 2012, 23:132-143.
31. Tacher S., Quignon P., Rimbault M., Dreano S., Andre C., Galibert F. Olfactory receptor sequence polymorphism within and between breeds of dogs. J. Hered. 2005, 96(7):812-816.
32. Olender T., Fuchs T., Linhart C., Shamir R., Adams M., Kalush F., Khen M., Lancet D. The canine olfactory subgenome. Genomics 2004, 83:361-372.
33. Svartberg K. Breed-typical behaviour in dogs - historical remnants or recent constructs?. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2006, 96:293-316.
34. King T., Marston L.C., Bennett P.C. Breeding dogs for beauty and behaviour: why scientists need to do more to develop valid and reliable behaviour assessments for dogs kept as companions. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2012, 137(2):1-12.
35. Lit L. Evaluating learning tasks commonly applied in detection dog training. Canine Ergonomics: The Science of Working Dogs 2009, 99-114. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL. W. Helton (Ed.).
36. Lit L., Crawford C.A. Effects of training paradigms on search dog performance. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2006, 98:277-292.
37. Jezierski T., Górecka-Bruzda A., Walczak M., Świergiel A.H., Chruszczewski M., Pearson B.L. Operant conditioning of dogs (Canis familiaris) for identification of humans using scent lineup. Anim. Sci. Pap. Rep. 2010, 28:81-93.
38. Jezierski T., Walczak M., Górecka A. Information-seeking behaviour of sniffer dogs during match-to-sample training in the scent lineup. Pol. Psychol. Bull. 2008, 39(2):71-80.
39. Maejima M., Inoue-Murayama M., Tonosaki K., Matsuura N., Kato S., Saito Y., Weiss A., Murayama Y., Ito S. Traits and genotypes may predict the successful training of drug detection dogs. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2007, 107:287-298.
40. Rooney N.J., Bradshaw J.W.S., Almey H. Attributes of specialist search dogs - a questionnaire survey of UK dog handlers. J. Forensic Sci. 2004, 2:1-7.
41. Gazit J., Goldblat A., Terkel J. The role of context specificity in learning: the effects of training context on explosives detection in dogs. Anim. Cogn. 2005, 8:143-150.
42. NSW Ombudsman Review of the Policy Powers (Drug Detection Dogs) Act 2001 2006, Office of the New South Wales Ombudsman, Sydney.