Originally Posted by
Section 107
When the dog alerts the investigating officer now has reasonable suspicion, not probable cause. Except for in the most exigent of circumstances, the handler is not the investigating officer.
Not all handlers in every agency are LEOs; some are just handlers. At airports, most frequently the handler of a TSA-provided Explosives Detection K9 is employed as an officer of the local LEA. Some airports have detection ED K9s that are not sourced from TSA. A local LEO will NOT be wearing a uniform that says "TSA K9" as doing so would be in contravention of general orders and constitute a disciplinary offense; only TSA employees will wear a uniform with TSA K9 emblazoned on the blouse/shirt.
TSA absolutely has its own canine handlers and has for many years. For most of the last decade and a half most handlers of TSA K9s at were LEOs of local airport/mass transit LE agencies but TSA still had its own handlers. The number of TSA handlers has been expanding steadily over the last several years and for TSA now has teams assigned to specific airports as well as teams that move around from airport to airport and other places. Some TSA-employed handlers are federal LEOs; others are Transportation Security Inspectors who are not "LEOs" (meaning they are not authorized to arrest, etc.) even as they have a law enforcement mission .
The photo is almost assuredly an example of part of mandated, recurrent evaluation with the TSA person in the foreground the evaluator.
Even as other breeds may be better suited to certain types of detection work, German Shepherds make for fine detection dogs although they are more frequently used in patrol work.
No, again, TSA does NOT train any of its K9s in narcotics detection. Certain posters who continually make the allegation to the contrary have been publicly and directly offered the opportunity to have an in-person visit with TSA K9 handlers to observe and learn first-hand all about the training but have refused the opportunity and yet still make the specious allegation. It's quite instructive yet disappointing how some folks simply refuse to let facts inform their opinions.
I'm the one that said
I still wonder if TSA doesn't sneak in a drug dog every once in a while.
partly tongue in cheek, and partly because I don't have confidence in the integrity of TSA on the whole. J
ust because TSA doesn't have drug dogs doesn't mean that TSA couldn't arrange for an outside agency to do some sniffing around. I know a lot of people like to think that law enforcement is beyond reproach but a serious look will demonstrate that is no longer true, if it ever was in the first place. TSA has made efforts over the years to turn their screeners into some form of quasi law enforcement group, some in the agency even going so far as to suggesting arming the screeners, so it is not unreasonable to question TSA's methods.
I think TSA should expand the use of ED K9's but if used beyond the checkpoints should be focused on employee areas since they aren't screened like passengers are.
I appreciate that you offered some first hand exposure to see how TSA K-9's are trained and handled but I just am not able to take advantage of the opportunity. Wish I could. To be clear I did not make an allegation, specious or otherwise, in my earlier comment.
As for as refusing to accept facts I don't recall there being any facts provided here, just a bunch of unknown people posting their side of the discussion without supporting evidence.