Community
Wiki Posts
Search

TSA Using Passenger Screening Dogs

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old Nov 24, 2017 | 12:04 pm
  #76  
All eyes on you!
15 Years on Site
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: WAS
Programs: enjoyed being warm spit for a few years on CO/UA but now nothing :(
Posts: 2,829
Originally Posted by Boggie Dog
I fail to understand the distinction between narcotics and drugs as far as when a detection dog would be involved. I posted earlier in this thread that CBP trains dogs to detect both currency and firearms so it is clear that dogs can be taught to detect more than one target item. Seems to me that a police search by canine during passenger screening without warrant would be a violation.
Understandable, because that was a typo; should have been "explosives and drugs" - I fixed it above.

Probable cause/reasonable suspicion is a complicated area of law which we shant get too much into here but when a canine indicates for explosives, the indication is accepted as a justification of reasonable suspicion and additional investigation.
Except in rare situations, the officer that is the dogs handler will not be the officer that conducts any subsequent search.
Section 107 is online now  
Old Nov 24, 2017 | 12:49 pm
  #77  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
20 Countries Visited
500k
All eyes on you!
15 Years on Site
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: DFW
Posts: 30,990
Originally Posted by Section 107
Understandable, because that was a typo; should have been "explosives and drugs" - I fixed it above.

Probable cause/reasonable suspicion is a complicated area of law which we shant get too much into here but when a canine indicates for explosives, the indication is accepted as a justification of reasonable suspicion and additional investigation.
Except in rare situations, the officer that is the dogs handler will not be the officer that conducts any subsequent search.
Using a detection dog is not considered a search?
Boggie Dog is offline  
Old Nov 24, 2017 | 1:54 pm
  #78  
Moderator: Travel Safety/Security, Travel Tools, California, Los Angeles; FlyerTalk Evangelist
30 Countries Visited
2M
All eyes on you!
15 Years on Site
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: LAX
Programs: oneword Emerald
Posts: 24,797
Originally Posted by Boggie Dog
Using a detection dog is not considered a search?
Sometimes yes and at other times no. It depends on the legitimate expectation of privacy in the area where the dogs are used.
SCOTUSblog - The dog-sniffing cases: Made simple

For example, the Court has ruled that it is not a search under the Fourth Amendment if police use a dog to sniff the exterior of luggage that police have temporarily seized in an airport terminal, believing that it is likely to contain something illegal. It also has allowed police to check the outside of a vehicle that police have legitimately stopped at a highway checkpoint set up to search for illegal drugs, or to check the outside of a vehicle that police have legally stopped for a suspected traffic violation. In each of those situations, the impact on privacy was considered to be very slight, because the intrusion was minimal, so the use of the dog did not violate the Fourth Amendment.
TWA884 is offline  
Old Nov 24, 2017 | 2:04 pm
  #79  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
20 Countries Visited
500k
All eyes on you!
15 Years on Site
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: DFW
Posts: 30,990
Originally Posted by TWA884
Sometimes yes and at other times no. It depends on the legitimate expectation of privacy in the area where the dogs are used.

Thank you. I readily admit that I don't understand were all the nuance is found when reading the 4th.
Boggie Dog is offline  
Old Nov 24, 2017 | 3:56 pm
  #80  
Suspended
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Watchlisted by the prejudiced, en route to purgatory
Programs: Just Say No to Fleecing and Blacklisting
Posts: 102,077
Originally Posted by Boggie Dog
Using a detection dog is not considered a search?
Not necessarily. For example, if the police pull over a passenger and the passenger refuses to consent to a search, the police in some jurisdictions will try to slow things down and call for a dog to sniff around the car. If the dog “alerts”, then that search the cop wants the cop may get, consent or not.

The nuance with the dogs is that it’s sort of akin to the police seeing something in the open with unaided eyes. Except it’s the dogs using their unaided senses to sense something “in the open” air.
GUWonder is offline  
Old Nov 24, 2017 | 4:50 pm
  #81  
Moderator: Travel Safety/Security, Travel Tools, California, Los Angeles; FlyerTalk Evangelist
30 Countries Visited
2M
All eyes on you!
15 Years on Site
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: LAX
Programs: oneword Emerald
Posts: 24,797
Originally Posted by Boggie Dog
I readily admit that I don't understand were all the nuance is found when reading the 4th.
The nuance is in the determination of what is unreasonable.
Fourth Amendment

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
TWA884 is offline  
Old Nov 24, 2017 | 4:57 pm
  #82  
Suspended
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Watchlisted by the prejudiced, en route to purgatory
Programs: Just Say No to Fleecing and Blacklisting
Posts: 102,077
Originally Posted by TWA884
Sometimes yes and at other times no. It depends on the legitimate expectation of privacy in the area where the dogs are used.
Perhaps he was using “search” there as a reference to (and shorthand for) unreasonable searches under the 4th, much as the response above seemed to take as an implicit assumption too.
GUWonder is offline  
Old Nov 26, 2017 | 9:01 am
  #83  
All eyes on you!
15 Years on Site
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: HNL
Programs: UA/Hawaiian/Marriott
Posts: 839
Originally Posted by Boggie Dog
I'll take on face value your statement to be true. Do any other agencies have canines screening passengers? Ever?
Most Airports LE Agencies have dogs that doe Explosives and Drug detection. You'd never be able to tell the difference of what dog was what.

When I worked as a Airport LEO, we ran dogs thru entire airport.... both types..... in secured and non-secured areas......

We usually didn't use them in the screening areas unless TSA called.....

That's just one airport. Every Airport is different when it comes to LE.
Bearcat06 is offline  
Old Nov 27, 2017 | 5:02 pm
  #84  
2M
50 Countries Visited
20 Years on Site
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Programs: AA Platinum for Life (2MM), Marriott Lifetime Gold
Posts: 1,041
I experienced the dogs in both SEA and MIA during Thanksgiving week. The security screenings were also "don't take anything out of your bags" and "come through the old-fashioned-looking metal detector". Probably not coincidence?
tai4de2 is offline  
Old Nov 28, 2017 | 8:53 am
  #85  
All eyes on you!
15 Years on Site
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: WAS
Programs: enjoyed being warm spit for a few years on CO/UA but now nothing :(
Posts: 2,829
Originally Posted by Bearcat06
Most Airports LE Agencies have dogs that doe Explosives and Drug detection. You'd never be able to tell the difference of what dog was what.

When I worked as a Airport LEO, we ran dogs thru entire airport.... both types..... in secured and non-secured areas......

We usually didn't use them in the screening areas unless TSA called.....

That's just one airport. Every Airport is different when it comes to LE.
The first sentence might be a little bit misleading to some readers in that it seems to imply that an individual dog does both types of detection when I think you meant that most airport LEAs have explosives detection dogs and narcotics detection dogs.
Section 107 is online now  
Old Nov 28, 2017 | 11:29 am
  #86  
Suspended
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Watchlisted by the prejudiced, en route to purgatory
Programs: Just Say No to Fleecing and Blacklisting
Posts: 102,077
Originally Posted by Section 107
The first sentence might be a little bit misleading to some readers in that it seems to imply that an individual dog does both types of detection when I think you meant that most airport LEAs have explosives detection dogs and narcotics detection dogs.
Would you rule out the possibility of a dog handler training the dog to alert on people/things for more than just one purpose? Dogs do sometimes get re-purposed, even officially.
GUWonder is offline  
Old Nov 29, 2017 | 9:22 am
  #87  
All eyes on you!
15 Years on Site
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: HNL
Programs: UA/Hawaiian/Marriott
Posts: 839
Originally Posted by Section 107
The first sentence might be a little bit misleading to some readers in that it seems to imply that an individual dog does both types of detection when I think you meant that most airport LEAs have explosives detection dogs and narcotics detection dogs.
Correct. My bad on the wording on that.

Originally Posted by GUWonder
Dogs do sometimes get re-purposed, even officially.
Whoever does that should be kicked in the head.

You'd have no clue if the dog was alerting on what it was originally trained on or newly trained on....

Last edited by TWA884; Nov 29, 2017 at 9:28 am Reason: Merge consecutive posts by the same member; please use the multi-quote function
Bearcat06 is offline  
Old Nov 29, 2017 | 9:47 am
  #88  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
All eyes on you!
20 Years on Site
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: An NPR mind living in a Fox News world
Posts: 14,343
Originally Posted by Section 107
The first sentence might be a little bit misleading to some readers in that it seems to imply that an individual dog does both types of detection when I think you meant that most airport LEAs have explosives detection dogs and narcotics detection dogs.
I had some USAF security police tell me a while back that it's easy to tell what a dog is doing by how they alert. A drug dog goes crazy because he has found the "toy" and is expecting a reward for "winning" the game. A bomb dog points & freezes, proving that they are, in fact, smarter than humans.

Originally Posted by GUWonder
Would you rule out the possibility of a dog handler training the dog to alert on people/things for more than just one purpose? Dogs do sometimes get re-purposed, even officially.
There is plenty of evidence out on the worldwide web to indicate that a cop can make a drug dog look like he's alerting anytime they want. There has to be a video in order to be able to prove the deception in court.

From a court case a few years ago (Florida vs Jardines), an opinion filed by the Loyola University of new Orleans College of Law clearly noted that doggies and (TSA ETD machines for that matter) don't actually find drugs (or explosives). They find residue that could be from anything. Someday, a Supreme Court will completely invalidate these methods as reasonable suspicion or probable cause:

Scientific research now establishes that drug-detection dogs do not alert to the contraband itself. Instead, drug-detection dogs alert to certain volatile substances generally, break-down products of the illegal drug. These decomposition odor constituents are in no way illegal or even unique to contraband. In fact, these volatile molecules or compounds are also found in substantial quantities in ordinary household items. Therefore, rather than detecting the contraband itself, a detection dog's alert to these entirely legal molecules or compounds instead produces an inference that contraband is also present. Because the canine-sniff technique relies on detection of noncontraband molecules and compounds within a home as the basis to infer that contraband is hidden inside, a canine drug-detection sniff is "capable of detecting lawful activity" within the home. Scientific research establishes that instead of smelling cocaine, drug-detection dogs alert to methyl benzoate an odor shared by snapdragons, petunias, perfumes and food additives. Instead of smelling heroin, drug-detection dogs alert to acetic acid an odor shared by vinegar and aspirin that is past its prime. Instead of smelling MDMA ("Ecstasy"), drug-detection dogs alert to piperonal an odor shared by soap, perfume, food additives and even lice repellant. (citation omitted)

 Brief of amici curiae Fourth Amendment Scholars in support of respondent[36]
FliesWay2Much is offline  
Old Nov 29, 2017 | 12:44 pm
  #89  
All eyes on you!
15 Years on Site
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: WAS
Programs: enjoyed being warm spit for a few years on CO/UA but now nothing :(
Posts: 2,829
Originally Posted by GUWonder
Would you rule out the possibility of a dog handler training the dog to alert on people/things for more than just one purpose? Dogs do sometimes get re-purposed, even officially.
possibility - no.

probability in respect to narcotics/explosives detection - absolutely. Never heard of it in regards to explosives detection for all the reasons previously stated although I suppose some clod somewhere might have done it.
Section 107 is online now  
Old Mar 31, 2018 | 12:54 am
  #90  
500k
30 Countries Visited
All eyes on you!
15 Years on Site
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: PDX
Programs: AS, UA, AC, Nexus, TSA Pre
Posts: 377
TSA Canine Fiasco at HNL

Originally Posted by Boggie Dog
The use of canines by TSA is not new. Dog sniffs for explosives, WTMD looks for metallics. The big problem is the number of dogs required for full time screening. I don't think the pipeline would ever meet TSA's needs.
Speaking of canines, I experienced a TSA canine debacle today at HNL. At one checkpoint, TSA had everyone (include PreCheck) going through a line so the dog could sniff the carry-ons. This was not the dog and handler passing up and down the line as I've seen a few times before. This was a line stretched out the terminal and down the curb side pickup area (at least 200 feet!) to get to the dog. According to the non-TSA guard tending the line, those with PreCheck get to do the usual PRE screening, but only after clearing the canine inspection. He also (incorrectly) stated that all checkpoints were doing the same thing. What a complete waste of everyone's time.

Fortunately the next checkpoint down was operating normally (no canine line) and the PreCheck line there was reasonable.

Anyone else seen TSA do this with canines?

nrg
nrgiii is offline  


Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service -

This site is owned, operated, and maintained by MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Designated trademarks are the property of their respective owners.