TSA's bomb-sniffing dogs
Nov 13, 2018, 1:32 pm
#271
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: DFW
Posts: 28,114
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.
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 still wonder if TSA doesn't sneak in a drug dog every once in a while.
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.
Nov 13, 2018, 2:45 pm
#272
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: WAS
Programs: enjoyed being warm spit for a few years on CO/UA but now nothing :(
Posts: 2,507
You're right, "imply" is better than "allege" and I have made the correction. I still believe it is specious to continue to make the implication.
Read the TSA program documents, review its testimony to our Congresscritters, witness it in person, and accept the statements of knowledgeable posters the same way statements of other posters on other issues are accepted.
I entirely and wholeheartedly agree with you on lack of confidence on many aspects of TSA and that law enforcement is not beyond reproach because history is replete with example of persons in authority abusing the authority and discretion they have been granted. And we know that some in gubmint will do so in the future - its human nature (both knowing that they will and that they actually will). We should trust gubmint just about as far as we can throw it. Semper Vigilans.
Read the TSA program documents, review its testimony to our Congresscritters, witness it in person, and accept the statements of knowledgeable posters the same way statements of other posters on other issues are accepted.
I entirely and wholeheartedly agree with you on lack of confidence on many aspects of TSA and that law enforcement is not beyond reproach because history is replete with example of persons in authority abusing the authority and discretion they have been granted. And we know that some in gubmint will do so in the future - its human nature (both knowing that they will and that they actually will). We should trust gubmint just about as far as we can throw it. Semper Vigilans.
Nov 13, 2018, 4:33 pm
#273
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Baltimore, MD USA
Programs: Southwest Rapid Rewards. Tha... that's about it.
Posts: 4,332
You're right, "imply" is better than "allege" and I have made the correction. I still believe it is specious to continue to make the implication.
Read the TSA program documents, review its testimony to our Congresscritters, witness it in person, and accept the statements of knowledgeable posters the same way statements of other posters on other issues are accepted.
I entirely and wholeheartedly agree with you on lack of confidence on many aspects of TSA and that law enforcement is not beyond reproach because history is replete with example of persons in authority abusing the authority and discretion they have been granted. And we know that some in gubmint will do so in the future - its human nature (both knowing that they will and that they actually will). We should trust gubmint just about as far as we can throw it. Semper Vigilans.
Read the TSA program documents, review its testimony to our Congresscritters, witness it in person, and accept the statements of knowledgeable posters the same way statements of other posters on other issues are accepted.
I entirely and wholeheartedly agree with you on lack of confidence on many aspects of TSA and that law enforcement is not beyond reproach because history is replete with example of persons in authority abusing the authority and discretion they have been granted. And we know that some in gubmint will do so in the future - its human nature (both knowing that they will and that they actually will). We should trust gubmint just about as far as we can throw it. Semper Vigilans.
However, I fall back on three rules of thumb when dealing with government in general and TSA in particular:
1) What is RIGHT isn't always what's LEGAL
2) What is LEGAL isn't always what HAPPENS
3) What HAPPENS isn't always what they SAY happened
To paraphrase Hamlet, "What a piece of work is the government man!"
Nov 14, 2018, 10:13 am
#274
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: WAS
Programs: enjoyed being warm spit for a few years on CO/UA but now nothing :(
Posts: 2,507
"[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."
TSA does not have to "arrange for an outside agency to sniff around" by using its dogs as a pretext - it is SOP for TSA to notify the appropriate other agencies anytime TSA has reason to believe a law/regulation may have been violated. And it is SOP for the other appropriate AHJ (authority having jurisdiction) to search according to GOs regardless of TSA activities. Which might include using other non-TSA program K9s to search for drugs or anything else it is supposed to be looking for.
The TSA ED dogs are not trained to alert on drugs, or currency, or smuggled humans, or agricultural products, or electronic parts (yes, some dogs are trained to sniff out hard-drives and memory cards for counter-intel and, most frequently, child porn investigations - it's pretty cool to see). The ED dogs have rigorous certification/evaluation standards; if the dog alerts or fails to alert outside of the standards then the team will be taken out of service and retrained and re-evaluated for recertification. If the teams fails recertification it will be permanently taken out of ED service. Very bad for both the canine and the handler's career.
TSA does not have to "arrange for an outside agency to sniff around" by using its dogs as a pretext - it is SOP for TSA to notify the appropriate other agencies anytime TSA has reason to believe a law/regulation may have been violated. And it is SOP for the other appropriate AHJ (authority having jurisdiction) to search according to GOs regardless of TSA activities. Which might include using other non-TSA program K9s to search for drugs or anything else it is supposed to be looking for.
The TSA ED dogs are not trained to alert on drugs, or currency, or smuggled humans, or agricultural products, or electronic parts (yes, some dogs are trained to sniff out hard-drives and memory cards for counter-intel and, most frequently, child porn investigations - it's pretty cool to see). The ED dogs have rigorous certification/evaluation standards; if the dog alerts or fails to alert outside of the standards then the team will be taken out of service and retrained and re-evaluated for recertification. If the teams fails recertification it will be permanently taken out of ED service. Very bad for both the canine and the handler's career.
Dec 24, 2018, 8:14 am
#275
Original Poster
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 3,526
I thought today was Christmas Eve, not April Fool's Day:
No pointy eared dogs
I imagine the true reason is that flop-earred dogs are better at scenting that prick-eared dogs, which are better at hearing. But, of course, TSA couldn't admit that mistake.
No pointy eared dogs
The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) will soon be moving to a “floppy ear” force, because dogs with pointed ears “scare children,” according to a reportfrom the Washington Examiner.
Dec 24, 2018, 9:47 am
#276
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: DFW
Posts: 28,114
Is this guy saying Pekoske is wrong?
Christopher Shelton, branch manager of the San Antonio, TX, canine training center, told Giaritelli that the TSA wouldn’t rule out a pointy-eared pup just because of his or her ears.
Dec 24, 2018, 10:02 am
#277
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: where the chile is hot
Programs: AA,RR,NW,Delta ,UA,CO
Posts: 41,700
It isn't just the kids. I was attacked by dogs twice when I was young: a German Shepherd and a boxer. If I'm anywhere near a pointy-haired dog, I start exhibiting some of the 'known terrorist' signs that the BDO's look for. My heart rate skyrockets (and if I'm at the airport, I can't have my nitro pills with me), I break out in a sweat, I start shaking and looking for an escape route.
I'm terrified, the dogs can smell it and it freaks them out, which frankly isn't a great experience for the dogs either.
But I'm sure TSA HQ has taken this into consideration and has valid SSI evidence proving that pointy-eared dogs are better at the checkpoints than floppy-eared dogs because the whole idea is to scare guilty people into giving themselves away. Terrified people don't make trouble, I guess,
I'm terrified, the dogs can smell it and it freaks them out, which frankly isn't a great experience for the dogs either.
But I'm sure TSA HQ has taken this into consideration and has valid SSI evidence proving that pointy-eared dogs are better at the checkpoints than floppy-eared dogs because the whole idea is to scare guilty people into giving themselves away. Terrified people don't make trouble, I guess,
Dec 24, 2018, 10:23 am
#278
Original Poster
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 3,526
It isn't just the kids. I was attacked by dogs twice when I was young: a German Shepherd and a boxer. If I'm anywhere near a pointy-haired dog, I start exhibiting some of the 'known terrorist' signs that the BDO's look for. My heart rate skyrockets (and if I'm at the airport, I can't have my nitro pills with me), I break out in a sweat, I start shaking and looking for an escape route.
I'm terrified, the dogs can smell it and it freaks them out, which frankly isn't a great experience for the dogs either.
But I'm sure TSA HQ has taken this into consideration and has valid SSI evidence proving that pointy-eared dogs are better at the checkpoints than floppy-eared dogs because the whole idea is to scare guilty people into giving themselves away. Terrified people don't make trouble, I guess,
I'm terrified, the dogs can smell it and it freaks them out, which frankly isn't a great experience for the dogs either.
But I'm sure TSA HQ has taken this into consideration and has valid SSI evidence proving that pointy-eared dogs are better at the checkpoints than floppy-eared dogs because the whole idea is to scare guilty people into giving themselves away. Terrified people don't make trouble, I guess,
Something is rotten in Denmark with TSA's reasoning.
Dec 24, 2018, 10:37 am
#279
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: where the chile is hot
Programs: AA,RR,NW,Delta ,UA,CO
Posts: 41,700
I suspect it's just another case of 'follow the money trail'.
If someone government-connected will make more money off pointy-eared dogs than floppy-eared dogs, we'll go with pointy-ears. If pax don't like it, tough. Flying is not a right and they are free to find another way to travel.
If someone government-connected will make more money off pointy-eared dogs than floppy-eared dogs, we'll go with pointy-ears. If pax don't like it, tough. Flying is not a right and they are free to find another way to travel.
Dec 24, 2018, 12:02 pm
#280
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: DFW
Posts: 28,114
Canines are very useful but have very short attention spans which makes for a short work day. I don't see how TSA can have enough canines to really make a big difference in screening procedures. If I was going to deploy TSA canines I would do it in employee and ramp areas since these people and spaces receive little to no screening.
I don't feel that TSA allots sufficient resources to non-passenger security. Just in the last few days this report was made:
UK says resurgent al-Qaeda plans to target planes and airports
Wallace said that increased airport security meant that terrorists would try to find new methods of carrying out attacks, including possibly placing jihadist sleeper agents in jobs at airports.
“They have explored other ways of getting bombs on planes. We’ve talked publicly about an insider threat issue. If you can’t get in the front door, you’re going to try to get in the back door,” Wallace said.
“They have explored other ways of getting bombs on planes. We’ve talked publicly about an insider threat issue. If you can’t get in the front door, you’re going to try to get in the back door,” Wallace said.
Dec 26, 2018, 2:26 pm
#282
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: An NPR mind living in a Fox News world
Posts: 14,165
Dec 26, 2018, 2:49 pm
#283
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: DFW
Posts: 28,114
I'm sure they will claim that there was some kind of explosive residue (gun powder) on the bag in some unimaginable way and claim the alert was proper.
Jan 2, 2019, 9:44 am
#285
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: PHX
Programs: AA Ex Platinum & 1MM, DL PLT, Marriott Gold, HH Diamond
Posts: 2,490
Seems like now the dogs are focusing on passenger crotches.
https://twitter.com/1980peterjb/stat...79070897537024
and
https://twitter.com/LAMLHA_/status/1080446326679265282
https://twitter.com/1980peterjb/stat...79070897537024
and
https://twitter.com/LAMLHA_/status/1080446326679265282
However, since we are talking about the TSA, this is no surprise.