TSA Using Passenger Screening Dogs
#76


Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: WAS
Programs: enjoyed being warm spit for a few years on CO/UA but now nothing :(
Posts: 2,829
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.
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.
#77
FlyerTalk Evangelist




Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: DFW
Posts: 30,990
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.
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.
#78
Moderator: Travel Safety/Security, Travel Tools, California, Los Angeles; FlyerTalk Evangelist




Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: LAX
Programs: oneword Emerald
Posts: 24,797
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.
#79
FlyerTalk Evangelist




Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: DFW
Posts: 30,990
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.
#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
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.
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.
#81
Moderator: Travel Safety/Security, Travel Tools, California, Los Angeles; FlyerTalk Evangelist




Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: LAX
Programs: oneword Emerald
Posts: 24,797
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.
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.
#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
Sometimes yes and at other times no. It depends on the legitimate expectation of privacy in the area where the dogs are used.
#83


Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: HNL
Programs: UA/Hawaiian/Marriott
Posts: 839
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.
#84



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?
#85


Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: WAS
Programs: enjoyed being warm spit for a few years on CO/UA but now nothing :(
Posts: 2,829
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.
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.
#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
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.
#87


Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: HNL
Programs: UA/Hawaiian/Marriott
Posts: 839
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
#88
FlyerTalk Evangelist


Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: An NPR mind living in a Fox News world
Posts: 14,343
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]
Brief of amici curiae Fourth Amendment Scholars in support of respondent[36]
#89


Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: WAS
Programs: enjoyed being warm spit for a few years on CO/UA but now nothing :(
Posts: 2,829
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.
#90




Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: PDX
Programs: AS, UA, AC, Nexus, TSA Pre
Posts: 377
TSA Canine Fiasco at HNL
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

