Section 107

Definitely not boring for the dog because s/he is simply always looking forward to the next reward and gets rewarded regularly due to constant training. Dogs can suffer from boredom but really aren't complex enough to suffer from job dissatisfaction....

Not boring for the cop because s/he never knows when the dog will alert to something. But, every cop wants to nab a bad guy and not getting to do so can definitely be (is) a source of job dissatisfaction. On the other hand, not finding a bag of explosives means one had a safe tour and gets to see loved ones again..... Handlers do need to be able to derive job satisfaction from knowing they are performing an important aspect of prevention even if not ever finding what they are looking for. Its not too dissimilar than most cops constantly training to use a firearm but never having to draw/fire their weapon in the line of duty during their career.

The dogs will alert on substantially the same chemicals as the machines.

Boggie Dog

Are TSA K-9 employees generally LEO or not?

Section 107

Has nothing to do with search warrants. In fact, the dog's response is often used to justify a search warrant.

While it possible to cross-train and there are cases of some idiots doing it, by professional practice and in consideration of the dogs this is not to be done; TSA strictly prohibits cross-training of its dogs.

This is because it is highly dangerous. Dogs must give a passive a response for explosives. A cross-trained dog would have to be trained to give two different final responses so that handler knows how to mitigate what the dog is responding to: whether to open the suspect package (drugs) or call the bomb squad.

Dogs are (relatively) smart but they can easily get confused and give the wrong response. Knowing the limitations of dogs it is very unfair and unethical to set them up for such confusion and the danger of a wrong response is clear.

In addition, training for both means less capabilities in both specialties as compared to training in only one.

Loren Pechtel

Unless it's a real small dog they would decide my wife was guilty. Little dogs (the beagles customs often uses) are enough to make her worry a bit, big dogs scare her.

Section 107

Yes, generally local and state LEOs. But in the last 7 or so years there are also some civilian handlers who are Transportation Security Inspectors (TSIs) who work for TSA.

DeafBlonde

What you said about cross training the detection dogs makes a lot of sense.

I once watched a demonstration at our volunteer fire department's fire prevention fair of a service dog used in arson investigations. He was trained to detect the presence of accelerants. It was amazing that he could detect the burned substance which was started using gas, lighter fluid, or other common chemicals.

The method of alerting on each one was the same, so I can see how he might get confused if someone tried to train him to alert different ways for different substances.

The dog was also versed in the "stop, drop, and roll" which really impressed the children at the fair!

petaluma1

Does not a search warrant have to delineate what is being searched for? If yes, then the LEOs don't know if the dog has alerted on drugs or explosives, so they can't apply for a warrant to search for a specific item. I don't believe it can be an "either or" situation.

petaluma1

You obviously have never lived with a Border Collie.

So the dogs are just as flawed as the ETD machines in an airport situation.

Boggie Dog

I may not have been clear in my question and was asking specically about TSA goverment employees. All TSA employees are civilians in my book. Non-civilians are military.

So again in an attempt to be very clear and precise: Are TSA dog handler jobs in the Federal LEO classifications or general TSA screener classifications.

I would not be surprised if there was some cross-decking but would expect most federal employee dog handlers to be LEO's.

Will look through USA Jobs to see if I can determine an answer.

Section 107

Have had 13 dogs, but no border collies, yet.

Dogs aint perfect, machines aint perfect, but both are better than humans and better than nothing at all.

Boggie Dog

I like Aussies and Shelties.

WillCAD

I could be wrong, but I was under the impression that a dog alert in most circumstances is considered probable cause, and is sufficient to make a search of a person or vehicle legal without a warrant. Obviously, if a LEO is walking his dog in a neighborhood and the animal alerts on a house or yard, that's not specific enough, but alerting on a particular person or a specific spot on a vehicle, I believe, is usually probable cause and justifies a search of the person or vehicle.

Section 107

Most of the handlers in the National Canine Explosives Training Program are sworn law enforcement officers of state and local jurisdictions. Some are TSIs - employed by the TSA.

Since the local and state LEOs are not federal employees they will not have an OPM classification standard (0002 or otherwise).

TSIs are classified using the 1801 classification standard.

In either case, dog handler is an assignment and generally not a specific classification.

Does that answer your question?

Section 107

Depending upon the jurisdiction the dog's response is a) probable cause to conduct a search without warrant OR b) enough probable cause to justify a warrant to conduct the search.

Boggie Dog

Yes that helps. In your earlier post were you suggesting that TSA contracts non-federal employees for dog handler duties? Are the TSA TSI's LEO's?