tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27185808910480376712024-03-13T01:16:45.339-07:00doglawreporter-Bay-NetAnonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12665938105899033120noreply@blogger.comBlogger255125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2718580891048037671.post-45470087610888098172014-01-21T05:31:00.000-08:002014-02-22T13:30:29.294-08:00Of Bonobos and Bottlenecks: Shifting Battle Lines in Dog Domestication Debates<div class="MsoNormal">A year ago I attempted to synthesize and, within my limited competence, comment upon archeological and genetic research regarding the origins of canine domestication.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>This is not a static field and a number of papers that have appeared since show that the landscape continues to shift in significant ways.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The date of initial domestication of dogs has been pushed back to 32,000 years ago by one group<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>(<a href="http://www.nature.com/ncomms/journal/v4/n5/abs/ncomms2814.html" target="_blank">Wang et al. 2013</a>)<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"></span>, while analyses of the bones found in the Goyet Cave in Belgium and the Altai Mountains in Russia, dated respectively from 36,000 and 33,000 years ago, appear to contain DNA of animals that were more dog than wolf, or at least somewhere in between, though perhaps not ancestors of current dogs but rather “aborted domestication episodes”—animals that had begun relationships with humans but which did not survive the Last Glacial Maximum.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">There have been so many publications from different laboratories, with overlapping teams of researchers, that it is sometimes difficult to clearly identify the positions of the schools of thought on dog domestication.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Certain scientists appear on many papers, yet inconsistencies between the conclusions of those papers make it nearly impossible to determine what those scientists actually believe from moment to moment.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>This is primarily a problem for amateurs such as myself, however, as the percolating nature of the research probably proves that dog domestication is truly one of the most exciting fields for a biologist, of whichever subdiscipline, to be working in.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal"><b>Where Domestication Occurred </b></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal"><table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left; margin-right: 1em; text-align: left;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhoWfqoyzygK70-C88J85wZshemh5eruz2Wr5qY6nVc5rH20M_v6-fUYOP_GX0khZysCAevDWdWXizUs7ZeCYdqLnMUqdnT2gQAGl1BrKdvKoOiq5G8htUgNIumgjjxuw4seof4s3CzBxY/s1600/Anthropologie+27+fig+14+dog.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhoWfqoyzygK70-C88J85wZshemh5eruz2Wr5qY6nVc5rH20M_v6-fUYOP_GX0khZysCAevDWdWXizUs7ZeCYdqLnMUqdnT2gQAGl1BrKdvKoOiq5G8htUgNIumgjjxuw4seof4s3CzBxY/s1600/Anthropologie+27+fig+14+dog.jpg" height="320" width="640" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Bone Pendant of Dog or Jackal (<i>Anthropologie</i>, 27, at 21)</td></tr></tbody></table>In my <a href="http://doglawreporter.blogspot.com/2013/02/canine-domestication-may-have-begun.html" target="_blank">March 2013 blog</a> on the archeology and genetics of domestication, I found that a principal focus of debate between the major groups working in this area concerned the original locus of domestication, with arguments being presented primarily for East Asia and South China, the Middle East, and Europe.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>This debate continues but no longer seems as heated a stretch of the battle line between the principal research teams. Consider the following statement in a <a href="http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs00335-011-9386-7" target="_blank">review paper</a> by Robert Wayne and Bridgett vonHoldt:</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">“Nuclear genetic evidence is consistent with European as well as Middle Eastern wolf populations contributing to the dog genome, whereas mtDNA evidence suggests an East Asian origin.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>However, backcrossing to various wolf populations complicates a simple scenario for dog origins.”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">The statement that mitochondrial DNA evidence suggests an East Asian origin is at least a tentative acknowledgment of the work of Savolainen and others.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>This tentativeness becomes even more pronounced deeper into the paper:</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">“The high degree of haplotype sharing among dog breeds and Middle Eastern wolves suggests an origin there or, as mentioned above, extensive backcrossing between Middle Eastern wolves and ancestors of modern and ancient dog breeds.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>However, the similarity of some specific East Asian ancient breeds and Chinese wolves suggest that wolves from this area contributed to the dog genome as well…. Moreover, the significant component of haplotype sharing for 15-SNP [single-nucleotide polymorphism] windows implies both the Middle East and Europe may have contributed substantially to the genome of domestic dogs, a result that is consistent with the archeological record.” </div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal"><table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; margin-left: 1em; text-align: right;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj_8FcUqxpvHynIlZJ95ZJL3SqDSpHy1ma-9KSdGmK6gFZVNdcYxuw2VrPe6fqLb5DvF2SYhfWDZr2_duqLGDm4CcT4AxWPTcLGWshPz8YrmdJI_jZV6IXJ9VFpoloAflwDGi3g1EzXlo0/s1600/Fig+131+a+wolves+on+stone+and+bone.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj_8FcUqxpvHynIlZJ95ZJL3SqDSpHy1ma-9KSdGmK6gFZVNdcYxuw2VrPe6fqLb5DvF2SYhfWDZr2_duqLGDm4CcT4AxWPTcLGWshPz8YrmdJI_jZV6IXJ9VFpoloAflwDGi3g1EzXlo0/s1600/Fig+131+a+wolves+on+stone+and+bone.jpg" height="396" width="400" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Wolves on Stone and Bone (Capitan, Fig. 131)</td></tr></tbody></table>Such openness to complexity in the locus of domestication is not shared by all researchers working in the area, and depending on what co-authorship means, may not be what Robert Wayne believes.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> A </span>paper analyzing complete mitochondrial genomes, <a href="https://www.sciencemag.org/content/342/6160/871" target="_blank">Olaf Thalmann (2013)</a>, which had 30 co-authors, one of whom was Wayne, who was also a contact author, remains critical of arguments for a non-European location for the onset of domestication, stating that such research, particularly associated with Peter Savolainen, was “more limited in sampling of modern or ancient wolves or prehistoric dogs and had weak statistical support for phylogenetic branching points.”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>While acknowledging that their own sampling “does not contain specimens from the Middle East or China, two of the proposed centers of origin,” the researchers argue that specimens from those regions are not older than approximately 13,000 years.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The paper states that “the mitochondrial legacy of dogs derives from wolves of European origin,” which is difficult to reconcile with the statement of Wayne and vonHoldt that “mtDNA evidence suggests an East Asian origin.”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal"><b>Genetics of Late Pleistocene Dog-Like Canids</b></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">Thalmann et al. analyzed the Goyet Cave canid, which was dated by Mietje Germonpre, one of Thalmann's co-authors, to 36,000 years ago.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The current team said that this animal’s “mtDNA relation to other canids places it as an ancient sister-group to all modern dogs and wolves rather than a direct ancestor of dogs.” Therefore, “the Belgian canids, including the Goyet dog, may represent an aborted domestication episode or a phenotypically distinct, and not previously recognized, population of gray wolf.” </div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">As to the wolf-like canid from the Altai Mountains, dated to 33,000 years ago and also discussed in the prior blog, the team, which also included Nikolai Ovodov, who first described the Altai specimen archeologically, classified it in the extant dog clade D, consisting at present of two Scandinavian breeds.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>As to this clade, the paper states:</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">“The grouping of clade D with ancient wolf lineages and the association of the Altai specimen with this clade do not support recent common ancestry of the Altai specimen lineage with the great majority of modern dogs.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>However, clade D dog haplotypes could have been captured as a result of interactions between ancient wolves and early humans that migrated into Scandinavia.” </div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">The Altai dog is not described as ancestral to the extant Scandinavian breeds with which it shares a small clade. Is there a presumption that traits of the group of canids to which the Altai dog belonged were still breeding with wolves and that there is enough difference between the ancient group and the modern Scandinavian breeds that the connection is best explained by the mediation of wolves? In a paper concerning coat color to be discussed below (Ollivier et al.), something of the opposite (i.e., transmission from dogs to wolves) is used to explain the presence of black coat color in North American wolf populations.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Since Thalman et al. speculate that the Altai specimen may represent an “aborted domestication episode,” it should be explained why wolves would be more likely than proto-dogs to migrate to Scandinavia.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>(See also the discussion of DNA haplogroup d1 in <a href="http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1365-2052.2010.02069.x/suppinfo" target="_blank">Klutsch et al. (2010)</a>.)</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">There is a bigger problem, however.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>A separate paper by <a href="http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0057754#pone-0057754-g004" target="_blank">Anna Druzhkova (2013)</a><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>and a team that included Thalmann, Ovodov, and Wayne, and which was published barely six months earlier, reaches an inconsistent conclusion regarding the clade to which the Altai canid should be assigned.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Although stating that the specimen has “no perfect match to any extant dog or wolf,”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>the earlier paper concludes that the Altai canid’s—</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">“haplotype cluster is embedded in a clade comprising exclusively contemporary dog sequences (Clade A) and contains the majority of dog haplotypes (45 out of 72) including diverse breeds such as Tibetan Mastiff, Newfoundland, Chinese Crested, Cocker Spaniel or Siberian Husky.”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>This team concludes that “the Altai specimen is likely an ancient dog with a shallow divergence from ancient wolves. These results suggest a more ancient history of the dog outside the Middle East or East Asia, previously suggested as centres of dog origin.”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">The later paper makes no reference to the first though its supplementary materials cite it and allude rather obliquely to the discrepancy by stating that an “unambiguous delineation of the phylogenetic position of this Altai dog mtDNA as either dog or wolf is inconclusive…. Interestingly, the highest proportion of quartets supports a topology of the Altai dog clustering with other ancient canids to the exclusion of modern dogs and wolves, which is indicative of some shared mutations uniting all ancient canids. ” I was advised by one of the joint authors that the results of the <i>Science</i> paper, the team headed by Thalmann, are “more robust” than the earlier paper, so the Clade D affiliation is to be accepted for the moment.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal"><table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; margin-left: 1em; text-align: right;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiqKlPq7rARTUy_tCYgUP-wKFRrXpQe4T0wBOLX3gxM4YiDLlxGUFskCwv-XoepSGop08Da482bv4t2X0T8aGWyTTJD99qVnb7z2wcLCKUFiW-qz2NmYjwL7W-z45ViCigOzC8hETNtdoQ/s1600/Fig+132+wolves+on+stone+and+bone+2.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiqKlPq7rARTUy_tCYgUP-wKFRrXpQe4T0wBOLX3gxM4YiDLlxGUFskCwv-XoepSGop08Da482bv4t2X0T8aGWyTTJD99qVnb7z2wcLCKUFiW-qz2NmYjwL7W-z45ViCigOzC8hETNtdoQ/s1600/Fig+132+wolves+on+stone+and+bone+2.jpg" height="147" width="400" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Wolves (Capitan, Fig. 132)</td></tr></tbody></table>If the Goyet and Altai canids were more genetically like dogs than wolves, or at least in between, yet were also aborted domestication episodes, the fact that genetic changes could have parallels between humans and dogs (the evidence for which is discussed below) certainly suggests that genetic changes in aborted episodes could run parallel to changes in the successful domestication episode that eventually led to modern dogs.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>This would not, of course, include those changes associated with the human development of agriculture, which did not occur before the Last Glacial Maximum when, presumably, lines including the Altai and Goyet dogs would have disappeared.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>By taking both the Goyet and Altai canids out of most lines of subsequent canid groups, however, the dating of those bones remains primarily the province of paleontological techniques.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal"><b>Admixture of Wolf and Dog Populations</b></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">Adam Freedman and 29 colleagues (<a href="http://www.plosgenetics.org/article/fetchObject.action?uri=info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pgen.1004016&representation=PDF" target="_blank">2014</a>) sequenced wolf genomes from possible centers of the origin of canine domestication but “found that none of the wolf lineages from the hypothesized domestication centers is supported as the source lineage for dogs.” <a href="http://www.plosgenetics.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pgen.1004093" target="_blank">Greger Larson and Daniel Bradley</a>, writing in the same issue of <i>PLoS Genetics </i>in which Freedman’s paper appears and introducing it, describe the use of whole genome sequences, also found in Thalmann et al., as “an exciting new phase” for genetic research on dog domestication.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">Freedman et al. state that post-divergence gene flow complicates the attempt to understand the separation of dogs from wolves, which they note is also a complicating factor in analyzing the relationship between and evolution of humans and Neandertals.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Gene flow between wolves and dogs is found by these researchers to have occurred in different parts of the world: </div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">“We found significant evidence of admixture for three population pairs: Israeli wolf and Basenji, Chinese wolf and Dingo, and Israeli wolf and Boxer…. Care should be taken in interpreting these results, as the detected admixture signals may reflect gene flow between lineages ancestral to our contemporary samples. The signal for Chinese wolf and Dingo likely represents ancient admixture in Eastern Eurasia, and the signal observed for Israeli wolf, Basenji, and Boxer likely represents ancestral admixture that occurred in western Eurasia.”</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">The researchers also found “significant gene flow between the golden jackal and the Israeli wolf.”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>They estimate a divergence time between 415,000 and 382,000 years “between the golden jackal and the population ancestral to dogs and wolves, which is considerably more recent than previously reported.”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The latter is a reference to <a href="http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1420-9101.2009.01901.x/full" target="_blank">Perini et al., 2010</a>, which at Figure 4 graphically indicates the separation of the golden jackal (<i>Canis aureus</i>) from the wolf line as more than a million years ago.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>This result is also relevant to the work of Rueness et al. (2011) <i>on Canis aureus lupaster</i>, “the cryptic African wolf,” discussed in a <a href="http://doglawreporter.blogspot.com/2011/05/egyptian-jackal-reclassified-as-african.html" target="_blank">prior blog</a>.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">Freedman et al. argue that admixture with wolves may not have been adequately taken into account in prior research:</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">“[T]he presence of long shared haplotypes in Middle East wolves with several dog breeds may reflect historic admixture rather than recent divergence. Similarly, elevated genetic diversity in East Asian dogs and affinities between East Asian village dogs and wolves may be confounded by past admixture with wolves. In areas where village dogs roam freely and wolves have historically been in close proximity, admixture may also be present and exert a non-trivial impact on patterns of genetic variation.”</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">Distinguishing recent from ancient admixture (e.g., by the presence of long shared haplotypes) may become a major focus of research. The proponents of an East Asian origin will undoubtedly have to deal with this issue as well.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">Freedman et al. note that estimates of mutation rates vary considerably in different studies, describing this as “the dominant source of uncertainty in dating the origin of dogs.”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Their calculations used a mutation rate that argued for domestication between 16,000 and 11,000 years ago, but they note that if they accepted the mutation rate used by Wang et al., the event might have to be placed even earlier than the 32,000 year-ago domestication that team proposes.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">As to which wolf population domesticated dogs came from, Freedman et al. did not find that dogs diverged from any specific population, but rather that “dogs diverged from wolves at about the same time that the sampled wolf populations diverged from each other.”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Thus, dogs may have diverged from a population ancestral to modern wolves, but the team also accepts that dogs might have diverged from a now-extinct wolf population.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><br /><br /><div class="MsoNormal"><b>Size of Founding Population and Bottlenecks </b></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /><a href="http://www.nature.com/hdy/journal/v110/n1/full/hdy201267a.html" target="_blank">Niskanen et al. (2013)</a>, a team that included Peter Savolainen, attempted to estimate the size of the wolf population from which dogs arose and concluded that there were a minimum of 51 wolf founders but that the number was most likely larger, at least 500 animals. They argue that domestication “was not a very rapid or local process,” and elaborate:<br /><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">“Possibly, domestication of wolf was a cultural process, which was spread across a large geographical area and involved many wolf populations. It has also been suggested that the domestication process was started by the wolves taking advantage of the food waste around villages—rather than by deliberate human action [citing the Coppingers]. If so, this behavior probably developed over a period of time and in an extended region.”</div> <br />Wang et al, the team that pushed domestication back to 32,000 years ago, concludes that bottlenecks subsequent to domestication were rather mild, which the authors argue is consistent with “an evolutionary trajectory for dogs that is often called self-domestication,” again citing the Coppingers.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Although this paper does not refer to Niskanen et al., the team that concluded that the number of wolf founders was probably at least 500 animals, both papers had Peter Savolainen as a co-author and presumably can be correlated to some degree. Such a small founding population would have had to expand before a severe bottleneck could be tolerated.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">Freedman et al., who, as discussed above, date the divergence of wolves from dogs at about 15,000 years ago, reach dramatically different conclusions on founding numbers and bottlenecks.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>This team states that their “results indicate the ancestral wolf population from which dogs were domesticated was considerably larger than estimated from current levels of diversity in wolves.”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>They believe that the population ancestral to both dogs and wolves numbered about 45,000 individuals, but that following the separation there was a 3.6 fold reduction in the number of wolves to about 12,600 individuals but a 22-fold reduction in the population ancestral to all dogs of only 2,000 individuals.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>They note that these bottlenecks are more severe than previous estimates of a two- to four-fold reduction in the dog population, referring to <a href="http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v438/n7069/abs/nature04338.html%20%20%20%20and%20Gray%20et%20al.%20%282009%29%20http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19189949" target="_blank">Lindblad-Toh et al. (2005)</a> and <a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19189949" target="_blank">Gray et al</a>.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Lindblad-Toh found that modern dog breeds “are the product of at least two population bottlenecks, the first associated with domestication from wolves (~ 7,000—50,000 generations ago) and the second resulting from intensive selection to create the breed (~ 50—100 generations ago).”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Gray et al. similarly “found evidence for a modest population contraction ~ 15,000 years ago (5000 generations ago) and severe contractions at breed formation.”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">Thalmann et al., which shares three co-authors with Freedman, including Wayne, though only speaking about one clade (A, the largest in terms of breeds), states: </div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">“A Bayesian Skygrid analysis applied to the largest clade (A), found a continuous population increase from the most recent common ancestor of the group, approximately 18,800 years ago, to about 5,000 years ago, followed by a decline from 5,000 to 2,500 years ago, and then a sharp increase in population size correlating with the increase in the human population.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The paper states that this “suggests demographic dependence of dogs on human populations.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>In contrast, wolf numbers declined during this period, consistent with the emergence of agrarian cultures and the loss of vital wolf habitat and wild game.”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />Determining the size of the ancestral wolf population from which dogs arose must, in the end, not be merely a matter of the mathematics of genetics. If that population was 500 and occurred 32,000 years ago or 2,000 and occurred 15,000 years ago, one must still explain the environmental context in which such a number of individuals began to go in a separate direction from a group that remained wild. If self-domestication was the behavioral mechanism at a time when human groups were relatively small bands of hunters, how many such bands would have to be involved, over how large an area? Were these bands essentially sedentary, living in caves over many generations, or were migratory patterns involved that spread the tamer wolves to other groups? Perhaps the proto-dogs were domesticating themselves not just as a matter of stabilizing their relationships with humans but also in order to be more cooperative with each other, as happened in the intraspecific behavior of bonobos after they separated from chimpanzees, as will be discussed below. </div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /><div class="MsoNormal"><b>Southeast Asia as a Secondary Locus of Canine Expansion</b></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal"><a href="http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2013/02/13/molbev.mst027.abstract" target="_blank">Benjamin Sacks, Sara Brown and four others (2013)</a> note that dogs are “an especially valuable proxy for understanding Holocene human movements,” but note that inconsistent faunal and DNA remains, which can be combined with canine data, “have limited our understanding of phylogeography of the earliest dogs.”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>They accept the conclusion of Savolainen and others that “worldwide analyses of mtDNA indicate that modern dog matrilines reflect a subset of those found today in Southeast Asia.”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The Southeast Asian origin theory can, however, be refined:</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">“If, however, dogs were absent from Southeast Asia until the Neolithic, the most parsimonious hypothesis reconciling archeological and mtDNA observations would be that early dogs entered Southeast Asia with pre-Neolithic peoples from the west or north, then later expanded outward 8–5 Ka [thousand years ago] swamping or replacing more primitive dog populations. Several lines of evidence support such a ‘Neolithic replacement’ hypothesis. First, Neolithic expansion of dogs from Southeast Asia 8–5 Ka would be in line with linguistic, cultural, archeological, and human genetic evidence of a westward expansion of Neolithic humans from the Yangtze and Yellow River basins … , the precursor to the slightly later migrations of Austronesian-speaking farmers from this same region, which were responsible for spreading dogs to Island Southeast Asia and Oceana.”</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">This team calls this the Neolithic Replacement hypothesis, to be contrasted with a Southeast Asian Origins hypothesis.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Thus, they see Southeast Asia as “a secondary center of diversification associated with Neolithic rather than Paleolithic peoples.”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>They describe this secondary expansion as “massive,” and argue that the Southeast Asian dogs were able “to demographically dominate and largely replace earlier western forms.”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>(This might be comparable to the large-scale replacement of pre-Colombian American dogs with European dogs discussed below.) The researchers believe this transformation could have been central to the evolution of dog diversity.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">“[T]he dogs of southern China could have been the first large population to have been reproductively isolated from wolves (<i>Canis lupus</i>), possibly accelerating their phenotypic divergence and diversification as a domesticate. Rapid spread of such a [southern Chinese] dog in combination with interbreeding with ancient western dogs could have produced a variety of forms, laying the basis for the first ancient regional breeds, which were first evident approximately 8,000 years ago.”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">Apparently “ancient western dogs” were not reproductively isolated from wolves.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Are we to imagine that the Goyet and Altai dogs were such dogs?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>In any case, the Neolithic Replacement hypothesis could arguably receive archeological support from the dog burial research of Losey et al., discussed several sections below.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></div></div></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal"><b>Genetic Changes During Domestication </b></div><div class="MsoNormal"><div style="text-align: left;"></div><br /><a href="http://www.nature.com/ncomms/journal/v4/n5/abs/ncomms2814.html" target="_blank">Wang et al. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"></span>(2013)</a><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"></span><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"></span>, already mentioned as having used genetic evidence to date domestication at 32,000 years ago, state that “Chinese indigenous dogs are likely one of the early groups that resulted from the first stage of dog domestication and were subsequently the source from which dog breeds were further selected,” but nevertheless concede that “the ancestral Chinese wolf, from which domesticated dogs may have originated, may already be extinct.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>In addition, several wolves from Europe and Mexico are closer to dogs than the Middle-Eastern wolves … , thus, it may be difficult to use patterns from extant wolves to infer domestication location.”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>This seems to reflect the willingness noted at the beginning of this blog to move the debate on domestication away from one primarily about location. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>This team speculates on what the earliest domesticated populations were doing for men in the 20,000 years before agriculture arose: </div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal"><table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left; margin-right: 1em; text-align: left;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjv_9L8yL_RFM-SKMXSPEGuGOFdjp0k4xV41lwuzexZjq5r76zZDPGrDtAa0cyvkTGbZyAwInzRxEVZGd_-Ezn5dDD0jeO2uNn1Ax7qPiCFRFwFEOQK2wVdnZpjkyCnLhK8dWKB8YbfpBg/s1600/Anthropologie+27+fig+10+loup.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjv_9L8yL_RFM-SKMXSPEGuGOFdjp0k4xV41lwuzexZjq5r76zZDPGrDtAa0cyvkTGbZyAwInzRxEVZGd_-Ezn5dDD0jeO2uNn1Ax7qPiCFRFwFEOQK2wVdnZpjkyCnLhK8dWKB8YbfpBg/s1600/Anthropologie+27+fig+10+loup.jpg" height="150" width="400" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Wolf from Laugerie-Basse (<i>Anthropologie</i>, 27, at 16; Paillet, Figs. 10, 11)</td></tr></tbody></table>“Early wolves might have been domesticated as scavengers that were attracted to live and hunt commensally with humans. With successive adaptive changes, these scavengers became progressively more prone to human custody. In light of this view, the domestication process might have been a continuous dynamic process, where dogs with extensive human contact were derived from these scavengers much latter when humans began to adopt an agricultural life style.” </div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">Wang et al., describing the “striking parallelism in the recent evolution of dogs and humans,” find genes apparently selected for in both dogs and humans “specifically for sexual reproduction, digestion and metabolism, and neurological processes.” Also, many cancer-related genes are shared by both species. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>They note that genes associated with nerve cells were selected, and citing Belyaev’s work on foxes, state: “Strong selection on behaviour (for example, reducing aggression) and neurological traits (for example, complex interactions with human beings) is often involved in the first steps of animal domestication.”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>A gene for a membrane protein that transports the neurotransmitter serotonin, variations of which lead to aggressive behavior, obsessive-compulsive disorder, depression, and autism, is found in both species.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">“Most interestingly, dogs respond similarly to the drugs that are used to treat humans (for example, clomipramine hydrochloride, a serotonin-reuptake inhibitor often also used as an anti-depressant drug), suggesting possible common genetic components for these behaviours in humans and dogs…. The protein coded by <i>SLC6A4 </i>might underlie the genetic component of many neurological traits in both dogs and humans.”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">The authors indicate that a possible explanation of the need for neurological change might relate to the population density resulting from domestication:</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">“As domestication is often associated with large increases in population density and crowded living conditions, these ‘unfavourable’ environments might be the selective pressure that drove the rewiring of both species. Positive selection in neurological pathways, in particular the serotonin system, could be associated with the constant need for reduced aggression stemming from the crowded living environment. Moreover, the complex intimate interactions between dogs and humans might have also driven some of the striking parallelism seen in these two species.”</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">The similarity of diseases between both species might be worth studying more as this could “shed light on the genetic architecture of these disorders in humans.”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> Unfortunately, this may imply more pharmaceutical research using dogs as laboratory animals. </span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">Axelsson et al. (2013), discussed in a <a href="http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v495/n7441/full/nature11837.html?WT.ec_id=NATURE-20130321" target="_blank">prior blog</a>, had concluded that dogs, during the human development of agriculture, adapted to “thrive on a diet rich in starch, relative to the carnivorous diet of wolves.”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Wang et al., referring to this research, note that genes having roles in the selective transport of dietary cholesterol were affected in both humans and dogs.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>“As domestication has led to drastic changes in the proportions of plant food, relative to animal food, natural selection on these genes in both species is expected due to this shared evolutionary history.”</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal"><table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left; margin-right: 1em; text-align: left;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEglmfGuUoJl5CJlyqQ5_opfTPlNPQMFkIckQoJpwDEnUoKNqwIjMpSO7V0Eol82Zhug-CTFEd2rhYHGH4OmczB6WDbgRiIYYNuxco8xR8BysAztLE6zRTeFW2Ytog0lPXRTPzdCCDQkPFk/s1600/canides+loups+detail.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEglmfGuUoJl5CJlyqQ5_opfTPlNPQMFkIckQoJpwDEnUoKNqwIjMpSO7V0Eol82Zhug-CTFEd2rhYHGH4OmczB6WDbgRiIYYNuxco8xR8BysAztLE6zRTeFW2Ytog0lPXRTPzdCCDQkPFk/s1600/canides+loups+detail.jpg" height="195" width="400" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Wolves (Capitan, Fig. 131)</td></tr></tbody></table>Yan Li and six colleagues (2013), including Bridgett vonHoldt and Robert Wayne, found that during domestication genes expressed in the brain evolved rapidly, “consistent with the evolution of dog-specific behaviors during domestication.” They elaborate:</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">“The primary key for early domestication is the transformation of negative defensive reactions toward humans (the fearful-aggressive response) to positive reactions, which means physiological changes in the systems that govern neurochemical production …. Specifically, such physiological change has been characterized by fearful response and a reduced locomotion in a novel environment and increased glucocorticoids that regulate the fear response by mediating neurotransmitter serotonin metabolism ….<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The behavior evolution is mostly attributable to brain evolution.”</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">Freedman et al., already discussed regarding the wolf population in which domestication began, also refer to Axelsson’s research regarding the genetic changes in dogs correlating with the human development of agriculture.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> This team, however,</span> focused specifically on the AMY2B gene, encoding alpha-2B-amylase. They report that the Dingo has just two copies of the gene, “suggesting that the AMY2B copy number expansion was not fixed across all dogs early in the domestication process.”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The team also says that the Siberian Husky, “a breed historically associated with nomadic hunter gatherers of the Arctic, has only three to four copies of AMY2B, whereas the Saluki, which was historically bred in the Fertile Crescent where agriculture originated, has 29 copies.”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">It can be expected that an ever more detailed picture of the genetic stages during domestication, with correlations to behavioral and environmental changes, will begin to emerge in the coming years.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal"><b>Behavioral Changes During Domestication </b></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">An international group of behavioral scientists headed by Bridgett Waller finds that dogs with facial expressions that enhance their neonatal appearance were preferentially selected by humans visiting shelters.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>This team (<a href="http://www.plosone.org/article/authors/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0082686;jsessionid=3B95BB56A8694AF5E6AEC54F4D3F92EA" target="_blank">Waller et al. 2013</a>) summarizes prior research establishing that in “many ways dogs appear more like wolf puppies than wolf adults.”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Among features making dogs look more like wolf puppies than adults are shorter snouts, wider craniums, upper face facial muscle contractions that increase the apparent size of the animal’s eyes, and other submissive behaviors such as tail wagging.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Using shelter dog adoptions as a proxy for dogs’ selection by humans over evolutionary time, these researchers “tested whether humans (when adopting dogs from a shelter) actively select for dogs, which appear more juvenile in the face as a result of facial muscle contraction.”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Facial movements were analyzed under the Facial Action Coding System (FACS) developed by other researchers for use across species, and specially adapted for dogs under the name DogFACS.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>(See Ekman et al., 2002, for an overview of FACS.)<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">These researchers found that dogs that produced a high frequency of facial movement to raise the inner brow were adopted more quickly from shelters and conclude that “this suggests that dogs have evolved to manipulate the human preference for paedomorphic features using the face.”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Curiously, excessive tail wagging did not help dogs but actually hurt their chances, suggesting that “indirect manipulation of human sensory preferences (particularly a preference for juvenile facial characteristics) has been a particularly powerful selective force in domestication.”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><br /><br />The team finds that facial expressions that were effective also make the dogs look sad, so that the adopters may have been responding to perceived sadness. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>They argue, however, that sadness expressions may be paedomorphic in humans, a means of displaying vulnerability.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>“We can therefore speculate that early domestication of wolves may have occurred not only as wolf populations became tamer, but also as they exploited human preferences for paedomorphic characteristics.”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">A recent paper that concerns bonobos rather than dogs is important in connection with behavioral changes during domestication.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><a href="http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleListURL&_method=list&_ArticleListID=-498585653&_sort=r&_st=13&view=c&_acct=C000228598&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=f92480a568468068525f6b3d45a9f9c0&searchtype=a" target="_blank">Brian Hare et al. (2012)</a> considered the lower level of aggression demonstrated by bonobos (<i>Pan paniscus</i>) than is found among chimpanzees (<i>Pan troglodytes</i>).<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>They state that the two species diverged about a million years ago, but that bonobos had more plentiful feeding areas and did not have to compete with gorillas for resources.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>In this environment, females formed strong coalitions with one another, these coalitions thwarted male efforts to dominate females, less aggressive males allied with female relatives, males with more juvenilized adult aggressive behavior were favored, and other changes had a cascading effect “as in human-driven domestication.”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>This suggests that not only must the interspecific communication of dogs and humans be considered in analyzing behavioral changes during domestication, but attention must also be given to intraspecific communication. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Using the Coppingers’ self-domestication model, when dogs began to live near dung heaps on the edges of villages, they presumably were more stationery and in closer proximity to each other for longer periods of time, during which their relationships were slowly transformed. Perhaps some level of instraspecific change had to occur before the first animal was brought into the camp.<br /><br />That intraspecific factors must have been involved in the self-domestication of dogs is arguable from the size of the founding population hypothesized by Freedman et al. (2,000, after a bottleneck following separation from a wolf population of about 45,000 individuals), or even Niskanen (probably 500, but perhaps as few as 51). Although it is easy to imagine 51 wolves becoming camp followers to a few bands of humans, larger numbers might require an additional explanation. Alteration of intraspecific behavior with reduced aggression and accompanying morphological changes (per Belyaev's foxes) seems likely to have been critical in the domestication process. </div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /><b>Arctic Breeds, Chihuahuas, and Carolina Dogs Keep Pre-Colombian Markers</b></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">The difficulty of finding genetic evidence concerning pre-Colombian American dogs was discussed in a <a href="http://doglawreporter.blogspot.com/2012/06/dogs-of-northeast-tribes-in-colonial.html" target="_blank">prior blog</a>, but recent research has made dramatic headway in this area.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><a href="http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/280/1766/20131142.full.pdf" target="_blank">Barbara von Asch et al. (2013)</a>,<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>in a team that included Peter Savolainen, summarize prior research on pre-Colombian dogs by stating that such “dogs must have been brought along by Paleo-Indians of Asian origin in their expansions throughout the American continent, although not necessarily in connection with the first waves of humans.” The question this group posed was as follows:<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">“Did the ancient migrants leave descendants in the modern American gene pool or were they completely erased by European dogs brought across the Atlantic in the post-Columbian era, and are extant dog populations direct descendants of the ancient populations in the same geographical region?”</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">The researchers find that “Inuit sled dogs, Canadian Eskimo dogs and Greenland dogs had similar mtDNA gene pools.”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>They find evidence that the modern Alaskan Malamute descended from the pre-European Alaskan population, but note that a particular haplotype (A29) was shared with the Siberian husky with which Alaskan huskys were interbred in the early 1900s. They also describe the results for the Malamute as “ambiguous,” apparently because of this interbreeding.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The researchers state that the presence of the A29 haplotype (absent in Europe) indicates genetic links between East Asia, Siberia and Arctic America.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>They find that the “Alaskan Malamute and the Eskimo/Greenland/Inuit group had almost totally different mtDNA gene pools.”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The researchers conclude that the Inuit/Eskimo/Greenland group “have remained practically uninfluenced by European lineages.” They also note that the “total lack of shared haplotypes” between the two broad arctic groups “possibly reflects sequential arrival to America of the related human populations.”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">The researchers found a haplotype (A185) unique to Chihuahuas among modern dogs.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>A185 was found in one pre-Colombian sample from Mexico “suggesting direct ancestry of Chihuahua from ancient Mexican dogs.”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The Mexican xoloitzcuintle (xolo) had “only haplotypes occurring universally and two haplotypes found in Europe.”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The Peruvian perro sin pelo del Peru included individuals with haplotypes unique to Europe but shared a haplotype with the xolo.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The Paulishtinha and dog Argentino breeds were believed to “originate from dogs of known European ancestry… and carried only haplotypes that are frequently found in Europe.”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">A haplotype (A184), unique to Carolina dogs among American breeks, is described by the researchers as belonging to an East Asian-specific phylogenetic subclade.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The researchers conclude that this and the presence in one individual of a haplotype found only among Chinese non-breed dogs and the Japanese shiba inu, “gives strong support to the hypothesis that the Carolina dog has indeed originated from pre-Colombian dogs.”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>South American free-ranging dogs, however, were found likely “to originate mainly from European dogs, although traces of native dogs cannot be totally excluded.”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">The overall conclusion of the research was that “all ancient American sequences except one (D40; possibly the result of dog-wolf crossbreeding) can now be linked to haplotypes present in East Asia or Siberia.” That there was dog-wolf crossbreeding in the Americas is indicated in the next paper discussed. </div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal"><b>Coat Color Variation Appears in Dogs </b></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal"><table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; margin-left: 1em; text-align: right;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh5M_Q3tcg7SSUb76OJlvg7Gj2FW8_tCPX_kzQHGcD7BMdqIhAId8PyqihuufkvSa24aSls9n6yPZbAVYWrb-Sr3XYY7-ZMkZ2JHMqY0Kd2vouHxZkrwAQEe2dg2BpVizB3wIPJD0b3t_U/s1600/Font+de+Gaume+wolf.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh5M_Q3tcg7SSUb76OJlvg7Gj2FW8_tCPX_kzQHGcD7BMdqIhAId8PyqihuufkvSa24aSls9n6yPZbAVYWrb-Sr3XYY7-ZMkZ2JHMqY0Kd2vouHxZkrwAQEe2dg2BpVizB3wIPJD0b3t_U/s1600/Font+de+Gaume+wolf.jpg" height="240" width="400" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Font de Gaume Wolf (Capitan)</td></tr></tbody></table><a href="http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0075110" target="_blank">Morgane Ollivier and 14 colleagues (2013)</a>, looking at two genes controlling coat color in 68 dogs and wolves from 28 different archeological sites in Asia and Europe, ranging from 12,000 to 4,000 years ago, find that an allele that causes melanism and a variant that may cause light hair color, were present as early as the beginning of the Holocene, over 10,000 years ago.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>In the introduction to the paper, the researchers state that the diverse locations where early dogs have been excavated “had no cultural ties.”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>They add that “several populations of wolves may have been at the origin of these domestication events and early dogs were probably characterized by significant genetic variability.” </div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">The genes studied by this group, Mc1r and CBD103, are “implicated in coat color variation,” regulating the production of red/yellow versus brown/black pigment.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>A particular mutation is currently only found in the Mc1r sequences of Siberian Huskies and Alaskan Malamutes.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The mutation was found in ancient dog samples in Asia and Southeastern Europe, but not Western Europe.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Where a particular allele was dominant, coat color was, the authors hypothesize, black.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>They state that “this mutation and the subsequent black phenotype have been present in the dog for 8,000 years at least.”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>They give a date range of 11,000 to 8,000 years ago for the first occurrence of this mutation in Eurasia.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>They state that their results are “congruent” with prior results indicating that the mutation is at least 46,886 years old, but do not explain how congruence to a change 35,000 years earlier is to be understood.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">Melanism is found only in North American and Italian wolves.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>In Italy, this team accepts that the transfer arose from recent hybridization between wolves and free-ranging dogs.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>In America, however, Ollivier et al. believe the “data would suggest that early black dogs of Eurasia could have migrated since the Upper Palaeolithic to North America across the Bering Strait and be at the origin of the present-day American black wolf populations, via a back-crossing process with local wolves.”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal"><b>Dog Burials in Siberia</b></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal"><table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; margin-left: 1em; text-align: right;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgEI4XukIkh0LT_maxxdWAtGhtNBUMn_bAz3ufgM_P5TNyiB7CSMMghtZJCfKznoSSrs7n2w7OszN13o_pTKMuJuwaeR7Xo1YB-k0y-60Kt1qPg39EeZqffs0j1szvU_jkAZMjUsJ-c6kU/s1600/map+of+Lake+Baikal.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgEI4XukIkh0LT_maxxdWAtGhtNBUMn_bAz3ufgM_P5TNyiB7CSMMghtZJCfKznoSSrs7n2w7OszN13o_pTKMuJuwaeR7Xo1YB-k0y-60Kt1qPg39EeZqffs0j1szvU_jkAZMjUsJ-c6kU/s1600/map+of+Lake+Baikal.jpg" height="328" width="400" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Lake Baikal above Mongolia (Wikipedia)</td></tr></tbody></table>One of the criticisms of the hypothesis for domestication in Asia has been that it does not square with the archeological record.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>There may, however, be a tendency to get closer to Asia with some recent research in Siberia, though as already mentioned, the archeological research might also be consistent with the Neolithic Replacement hypothesis.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><a href="http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0063740" target="_blank">Robert Losey and nine colleagues (2013)</a> wanted to know if dog burials on the shores of Lake Baikal in Siberia “could be related to the particular ways in which dogs were utilized by people in the past.”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">Canid burials first appear in the region “near the Mesolithic/Early Neolithic transition,” 8,000 to 7,000 years ago, beginning with a wolf, but followed several centuries later by a number of dogs. Dog burials appear at the same time as human graves and cemeteries become common in the area.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>A dog buried between 7,420 and 7,325 years ago was found in a grave of an adult male human.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>A dog buried from 7,150 to 6,945 years ago was placed in a sitting or crouching position.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>One dog, buried between 6,880 and 6,755 years ago “was interred wearing a necklace of eight red deer canine tooth pendants and also associated with its skeleton were a Bovidae scapula and horn core, two whole roe deer antlers, and other unidentified bones.”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The paper contains excellent drawings and photographs of these burials.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The researchers conclude:</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">“Dogs were the only domesticated animals living with humans at this time, and it appears that dogs and animals such as bears were considered by foraging groups here to be spiritually similar to humans, as were many animals among historic northern indigenous groups. When these broader beliefs were combined with intimate personal relationships with dogs, which here involved sharing many of the same foods, and the broader practice of burying one’s group members in cemeteries, some dogs were given ‘human’ mortuary rites.” </div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">The dogs “had variable diets, with some relying heavily on aquatic foods, others much less so.”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The dogs “were eating much like the local humans who were most reliant on aquatic foods.”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The humans dogs were associated with, however, did not all have aquatic-food diets.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The authors conclude:</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">“Clearly, no single human subsistence practice or diet is correlated with the practice of burying dogs in Cis-Baikal. If anything, dogs were more commonly buried where diets were broader as a result of use of both terrestrial and aquatic fauna.”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The researchers speculate that humans may sometimes have kept larger fish for themselves, and given smaller fish to dogs.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">Dog burials found so far are concentrated in the Early Neolithic, but were absent in the Middle Neolithic and rare thereafter.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>As to the pastoralists of the Late Holocene, the authors state:</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">“Pastoralist groups by definition lived in close association with many domesticated species, here most often sheep, goats, horses, and cattle. These groups regularly rode, sold, traded, sacrificed, and consumed these animals, and considered them property. Perhaps because dogs in these societies no longer had the unique position of being humans’ only cohabitant animal, and because people’s relationships to animals more broadly had changed with the emergence of pastoralism, dogs no longer were considered to have spiritual equivalency with humans and were no longer considered eligible for burial in human cemeteries.”</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal"><b>Conclusion </b></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal"><table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left; margin-right: 1em; text-align: left;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEimV-YXeY5qypjdeGFMspQQWWagC9oWVOYDh0VlnSWep2DQS7TD0r8s1sc8bHEgqnr6jSXttQvY7TG2Pmu91rEx5FyWirz2Z2iVx636UdiLhqby_ByOr4AgvYxp8zYPccyFFVWBwmYiBu8/s1600/Fig+131+b+reindeer+bone+fox+head.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEimV-YXeY5qypjdeGFMspQQWWagC9oWVOYDh0VlnSWep2DQS7TD0r8s1sc8bHEgqnr6jSXttQvY7TG2Pmu91rEx5FyWirz2Z2iVx636UdiLhqby_ByOr4AgvYxp8zYPccyFFVWBwmYiBu8/s1600/Fig+131+b+reindeer+bone+fox+head.jpg" height="141" width="400" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Reindeer Bone with Fox Head (Capitan, Fig. 131) </td></tr></tbody></table>I can add but one suggestion for further research, which is that among the archeological data in need of reanalysis are certain caves and other locations of rock art, some of which date to the Upper Paleolithic.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Early analysis of canids depicted in such locations assumed that the animals could not be dogs because of the dating.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>(H. Breuil, <i>Anthropologie 27</i>, p. 595: “Étant donné l'âge des peintures, ce n'est pas admissible,” though Breuil considered the issue open. See Paillet and Man-Estier (2011) for rediscovery of items from the early digs.)<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Figures that look like dogs could thus be labelled wolves or even hyenas a century ago, as was the case with the first figure above.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>For the significance of this item and its likely depiction of a dog I am indebted to Don Hitchcock (personal communication and <a href="https://www.blogger.com/goog_763117179" target="_blank">Megalithic Portal website</a>). The other figures included in this blog are from the early twentieth century and were labeled as wolves or foxes but, under the timelines accepted by the research discussed here, might just as well be dogs. If humans were burying dogs, would it not be likely that they were also drawing them on rocks? </div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">Although it appears that most geneticists are willing to accept some level of domestication for the dog-like canids found in the Goyet Cave and the Altai Mountains, these animals appear to be aborted domestication events.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Current dogs, for most geneticists, appear to reflect a divergence from wolves of about 15,000 years ago, though one team now pushes the domestication event back to 32,000 years ago. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>This date, however, assumed a mutation rate that has been rejected by a team that would date domestication more recently.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Research on mutation rates will be a major focus in the coming years, and may alter already published estimates of significant genetic events.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">That dogs arose from wolves is no longer disputed, but where this occurred remains in doubt.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Although the various schools still plant flags on maps, there seems to be a growing acceptance that this issue is complicated and that conflicting data may have to be amalgamated, probably including findings that have yet to be made.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The wolf population from which dogs arose may have been confined to one region but the extent of the region is unclear and the size of the founding group is a matter of dispute.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The level of gene flow after domestication is a complicating factor in determining the date and place of domestication, and further research on wolf populations is likely to adjust the significance of current genetic evidence.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Findings from different research groups on bottlenecks in both wolf and dog populations cannot be reconciled at present.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">An area of dramatic development in the last two years concerns genetic and behavioral changes associated with domestication.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Regardless of when and where domestication began, it appears that dogs and humans underwent genetic alteration as they began living and cooperating with each other, and that some of these changes ran in parallel.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Areas showing overlap include neurological mechanisms, digestion and metabolism, and even disease.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Dogs became smaller than their wolf progenitors, and by the beginnings of agriculture if not earlier, began to look different from them in terms of coat color.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">The excavation of burial sites near Lake Baikal suggests that even before agriculture dogs were sufficiently important to receive human-like burials in Asia, sometimes with humans with whom they had been associated.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The effort to correlate archeology with genetics may often be fruitless, but must continue to be made, as was done by <a href="http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2012/05/15/1203005109" target="_blank">Larson et al. in 2012</a>.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> As Wayne and vonHoldt said in their review paper discussed at the beginning of this blog, it "is truly an exciting time for canine evolutionary genomics." </span><br /><br /><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">Thanks to <a href="http://www.fernhill.com/" target="_blank">Richard Hawkins</a> and Kingsbury Parker for suggestions. </span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal"><i>Sources</i>:</div><div class="MsoNormal"></div><ol><li>Axelsson, E., Ratnakumar, A., Arendt, M-J., Maqbool, K., Webster, M.T., Perloski, M., Liberg, O., Arnemo, J.M., Hedhammar, A., and Lindblad-Toh, K., (2013). The Genomic Structure of Dog Domestication Reveals Adaptation to a Starch-Rich Diet. <a href="http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v495/n7441/full/nature11837.html?WT.ec_id=NATURE-20130321" target="_blank"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Nature</i> (published first online); doi:10.1038/nature11837</a><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"></span>.</li><li>Bourlon, Le Capitaine (1916).<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Nouvelle Decouvertes a Laugerie-Basse<i>. L’Anthropologie, 27</i>, 1-26.</li><li>Capitan, L., Breuil, H., and Peyrony, D. (1910). <i>La Caverne de Font-de-Gaume</i>.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>A. Chene, Monaco.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></li><li>Coppinger, R., and Coppinger, L. (2001). <i>Dogs: A Startling New Understanding of Canine Origin, Bheavior and Evolution</i>. New York: Scribners.</li><li>Druzhkova, A.S., Thalmann, O., Trifonov, V.A. et al. (2013). Ancient DNA Analysis Affirms the Canid from Altai as a Primitive Dog.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><a href="http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0057754#pone-0057754-g004" target="_blank"><i>PLOS ONE 8(3)</i>, e57554</a>. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></li><li>Ekman, P. Friesen, W.V., and Hager, J.C. (2002). <i>The Facial Action Coding System</i>.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Salt Lake City, Research Nexus.</li><li>Freedman A.H., Gronau, I., Schweizer R.M., Ortega-Del Vecchyo, D., Han, E., et al. (2014). Genome Sequencing Highlights the Dynamic Early History of Dogs. <a href="http://www.plosgenetics.org/article/fetchObject.action?uri=info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pgen.1004016&representation=PDF" target="_blank"><i>PLoS Genetics 10(1)</i>. e1004016</a><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"></span>.</li><li>Gray, M.M., Granka, J.M., Bustamante, C.D., Sutter, N.B., Boyko, A.R., Zhu, L., Ostrander, E.A., and Wayne, R.K. (2009). Linkage Disequilibrium and Demographic History of Wild and Domestic Canids.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19189949" target="_blank"><i>Genetics, 181(4)</i>, 1493-1505</a>.</li><li>Hare, B., Wobber, V., and Wrangham, R. (2012). The Self-Domestication Hypothesis: Evolution of Bonobo Psychology Is Due to Selection against Aggression.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><a href="http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleListURL&_method=list&_ArticleListID=-498585653&_sort=r&_st=13&view=c&_acct=C000228598&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=f92480a568468068525f6b3d45a9f9c0&searchtype=a" target="_blank"><i>Animal Behaviour, 83(3)</i>, 573-585</a>.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></li><li>Hitchcock, D. posting on <a href="http://www.megalithic.co.uk/modules.php?op=modload&name=a312&file=index&do=showpic&pid=99410" target="_blank">Megalithic Portal</a>, identification of canid on pierced stone found at Laugerie-Basse (Aquitaine: Dordogne) as possibly a dog.</li><li>Klutsch, Seppala, Fall, et al. (2010). Regional Occurrence, High Frequency but Low Diversity of Mitochondrial DNA Haplogroup d1 Suggests a Recent Dog-Wolf Hybridization in Scandinavia.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><i>A<a href="http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1365-2052.2010.02069.x/suppinfo" target="_blank">nimal Genetics, 42(1)</a></i><a href="http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1365-2052.2010.02069.x/suppinfo" target="_blank">, 100-103</a>.</li><li>Larson, G., and Bradley, D.G. (2014).<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>How Much Is That in Dog Years?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The Advent of Canine Population Genomics.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><a href="http://www.plosgenetics.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pgen.1004093" target="_blank"><i>PLoS Genetics, 10(1)</i>, e1004093</a>.</li><li>Larson, G., Karlsson, E.K., Perri, A., et al. (2012). Rethinking Dog Domestication by Integrating Genetics, Archeology, and Biogeography. <a href="http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2012/05/15/1203005109" target="_blank"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 109(23)</i>, 8878-83</a><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"></span>.</li><li>Li, Y., vonHoldt, B.M., Reynolds, A. et al. (2013). Artificial Selection on Brain-Expressed Genes during the Domestication of Dog. <a href="http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2013/06/04/molbev.mst088" target="_blank"><i>Molecular Biology and Evolution, 30(8)</i>, 1867-1876</a>.</li><li>Lindblad-Toh, K., Wade, C.M., Mikkelsen, T.S., Karlsson, E.K., Jaffe, D.B., Kamal, M., et al. (2005). Genome Sequence, Comparative Analysis and Haplotype Structure of the Domestic Dog. <a href="http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v438/n7069/abs/nature04338.html" target="_blank"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Nature, 438(8)</i>, 803-819</a>.</li><li>Losey, R.J., Garvie-Lok, S. Leonard, J.A., Katzenberg, M.A., Germonpre, M., Nomokonova, T., Sablin, M.V., Goriunova, O.I., Berdnikova, N.E., and Savel’ev, N.A. (2013). Burying Dogs in Ancient Cis-Baikal, Siberia: Temporal Trends and Relationships with Human Diet and Subsistence Practices.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><a href="http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0063740" target="_blank"><i>PLos One, 8(5)</i>, e63740</a>.</li><li>Niskanen, A.K., Hagstrom, E., Hohi, H., et al. (2013).<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>MHC Variability Supports Dog Domestication from a Large Number of Wolves: High Diversity in Asia.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><a href="http://www.nature.com/hdy/journal/v110/n1/full/hdy201267a.html" target="_blank"><i>Heredity, 110</i>, 80-85</a>.</li><li>Ollivier, M., Tresset, A., Hitte, C. et al. (2013). Evidence of Coat Color Variation Sheds New Light on Ancient Canids. <a href="http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0075110" target="_blank"><i>PLoS One, 8(10)</i>, e75110</a><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"></span>.</li><li>Paillet, P., and Man-Estier, E. (2011). Oeuvres d'Art Meconnues de Laugerie-Basse (Dordogne). Collection Capitaine Maurice Bourlon-Institut de PaleontologieHumaine, Paris. <i>L'Antrhopologie, 115</i>, 505-521) ("Les représentations de Canidés, et plus spécifiquement de caninés, sont très rares dans l’art paléolithique. Leur détermination n’est pas toujours aisée." As to Fig. 11, a new drawing of the item in the fourth picture here, these authors note: "Le stop est bien marqué et le front bombé," yet they put a question mark after their designation of 'loup?', without stating any possibility that it might be a dog. Dr. Germonpre pointed out to me the stop and the swollen frontals of this animal, which could argue that it is a dog rather than a wolf. I believe that the same could be said of the canid on the pendant in the first picture here, as well as the left figure in the fifth picture and the Font de Gaume wolf.)</li><li>Perini, F.A., Russo, C.A.M., and Schrago, C.G. (2010). The Evolution of South American Endemic Canids: A History of Rapid Diversification and Morphological Parallelism.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><a href="http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1420-9101.2009.01901.x/pdf" target="_blank"><i>Journal of Evolutionary Biology, 23(2)</i>, 311-322</a><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"></span>.</li><li>Sacks, B.N., Brown, S.K., Stephens, D. (2013).<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Y Chromosome Analysis of Dingoes and Southeast Asian Village Dogs Suggests a Neolithic Continental Expansion from Southeast Asia Followed by Multiple Austronesian Dispersals.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><a href="http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2013/02/13/molbev.mst027.abstract" target="_blank"><i>Molecular Biology and Evolution, 30(5)</i>, 1103-1118</a><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"></span>.</li><li>Thalmann, O., Shapiro, B., Cui, P., et al. (2013). Complete Mitochondrial Genomes of Ancient Canids Suggest a European Origin of Domestic Dogs. <a href="https://www.sciencemag.org/content/342/6160/871" target="_blank"><i>Science, 342 (6160)</i>, 871-4</a>.</li><li>Tito, R.Y., Belknap III, S.L., Sobolik, K.D., et al. (2011). Brief Communication: DNA from Early Holocene American Dog.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><a href="http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ajpa.21526/abstract" target="_blank"><i>American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 145</i>, 653-7</a><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"></span>.</li><li>von Asch, B., Zhang, A.-b., Oskarsson, M.C.R., Klutsch, C.F.C., Amorim, A., and Savolainen, P. (2013). Pre-Colombian Origins of Native American Dog Breeds, with Only Limited Replacement by European Dogs, Confirmed by mtDNA Analysis, <a href="http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/280/1766/20131142.full.pdf" target="_blank"><i>Proceedings of the Royal Society B. 280: 20131142</i></a>.</li><li>Waller, B.M., Peirce, K., Caeiro, C.C., Scheider, L., Burrows, A.M., McCune, S., and Kaminski, J. (2013). Paedomorphic Facial Expressions Give Dogs a Selective Advantage.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><a href="http://www.plosone.org/article/authors/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0082686;jsessionid=3B95BB56A8694AF5E6AEC54F4D3F92EA" target="_blank"><i>PLoS One, 8(12)</i>, e82686</a><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"></span>.</li><li>Wang, G-d, Zhai, W., Yang, H-e, et al. (2013). The Genomics of Selection in Dogs and the Parallel Evolution between Dogs and Humans.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><i><a href="http://www.nature.com/ncomms/journal/v4/n5/abs/ncomms2814.html" target="_blank">Nature Communications, 4:1860</a><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"></span></i>.</li><li>Wayne, R.K., and vonHoldt, B.M. (2012). Evolutionary Genomics of Dog Domestication.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><a href="http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs00335-011-9386-7" target="_blank"><i>Mammalian Genome, 23(1-2)</i>, 3-18</a>.</li></ol>Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12665938105899033120noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2718580891048037671.post-55638751471823071442014-01-02T06:33:00.000-08:002014-02-22T13:30:29.308-08:00Dogs, Once Hunters of Ringed Seals and Polar Bears, Now Help Protect Them Dogs have been trained to monitor the status of endangered species, including <a href="http://doglawreporter.blogspot.com/2009/05/certification-for-tortoise-detector.html" target="_blank">desert tortoises</a>, <a href="http://doglawreporter.blogspot.com/2010/08/telling-tigers-apart-scent-lineups.html" target="_blank">Siberian tigers</a>, and <a href="http://doglawreporter.blogspot.com/2010/03/types-of-detection-dogs-how-many-can.html" target="_blank">numerous other animals</a>, but these functions were usually developed without any legal requirement. In the oil drilling areas of Alaska, however, regulations recommend, in the case of polar bears, and require, in the case of ringed seals, that their habitats, particularly breeding areas, be identified by trained detection dogs. Given that the skill of dogs in finding seals and bears was originally honed to hunt these animals, their use for conservation is a dramatic change in purpose. <br /><br /><b>National Marine Fisheries Service </b><br /><br /><table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; margin-left: 1em; text-align: right;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiFPDMJQuEWtlEZNKDUT9UU3yNzoyoKVvuxSAInDl5b4lRZcn5W4EmlJekAuyKq9QDhXnnh-emdS8NEhNSeq01FMfNHCyqd83pcY6S5uKhU_O5HgV7EV7fQyTMmJ_HFd6WIQh1flYcq_0U/s1600/Beaufort+Sea+and+pipeline.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="383" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiFPDMJQuEWtlEZNKDUT9UU3yNzoyoKVvuxSAInDl5b4lRZcn5W4EmlJekAuyKq9QDhXnnh-emdS8NEhNSeq01FMfNHCyqd83pcY6S5uKhU_O5HgV7EV7fQyTMmJ_HFd6WIQh1flYcq_0U/s400/Beaufort+Sea+and+pipeline.jpg" width="400" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Map of Alaska Showing Beaufort Sea and Oil Pipeline (Wikipedia)</td></tr></tbody></table>The Marine Mammal Protection Act, signed into law by President Nixon in 1972, codified in Title 16, Chapter 31 of the U.S. Code, allows for the incidental but not intentional taking of marine mammals in activities other than commercial fishing if certain findings are made and regulations are issued.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Authorization is to be granted if the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), an office within the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration of the Department of Commerce, finds the taking will have a negligible impact on the species or stock, will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of the species or stocks for subsistence uses, and if the permissible methods of taking and requirements pertaining to the mitigation, monitoring, and reporting of such taking are set forth.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><br /><br />On December 12, the NMFS issued final regulations under the Marine Mammal Protection Act to govern the unintentional taking of marine mammals incidental to the operation of offshore oil and gas facilities in the U.S. Beaufort Sea, along the northern coast of Alaska.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The request for the regulations came from BP (formerly British Petroleum).<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The regulations authorize the incidental taking of marine mammals for drilling operations in the Beaufort Sea from January 2014 to January 2019.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><br /><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal"><b>Marine Mammals Affected by BP Operations</b></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">BP requested authorization to take six mammal species incidental to operation of the Northstar development in the Beaufort Sea for five years.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northstar_Island" target="_blank">Northstar Island</a>, a man-made facility consisting created for drilling operations, was completed in 2001.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>From 2014 through 2019, BP intends to continue drilling operations, though not on the scale conducted in earlier years.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>These operations will have both acoustic and non-acoustic effects on marine mammals in the area resulting from “vehicles operating on the ice, vessels, aircraft, generators, production machinery, gas flaring, and camp operations.” Animals that will be affected are:</div><ul><li>Bowhead whales (<i>Balaena mysticetus</i>)</li><li>Gray whales (<i>Eschrichtius robustus</i>)</li><li>Beluga whales (<i>Delphinapterus leucas</i>)</li><li>Ringed seals (<i>Phoca hispida</i>)</li><li>Bearded seals (<i>Erignathus barbatus</i>) </li><li>Spotted seals (<i>Phoca largha</i>) </li><li>Polar bear (<i>Ursus maritimus</i>) </li><li>Pacific walrus (<i>Odobenus rosmarus divergens</i>) </li></ul><div class="MsoNormal"></div><div class="MsoNormal">BP estimates that it will take about five ringed seals annually by injury or mortality. The other species will be “harassed,” but less affected than the ringed seals.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Walruses and polar bears are managed by the Fish and Wildlife Service (Department of the Interior), so were not considered in the rules of the Department of Commerce.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal"><table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhyRA17bufLQTTtKP3z85b14M3eppvcpRFMs-8cG75xNjZblh9z_OGGFKJn8a4pf4EL2MYBwV5VPZV329XdhSdhT0mcFJOpq4c34wMZzjTLbrQYIBLhOpUFnr4QQcFTuGmeolEzVxYD5fo/s1600/map+of+southern+boundary+of+ringed+seal.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="148" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhyRA17bufLQTTtKP3z85b14M3eppvcpRFMs-8cG75xNjZblh9z_OGGFKJn8a4pf4EL2MYBwV5VPZV329XdhSdhT0mcFJOpq4c34wMZzjTLbrQYIBLhOpUFnr4QQcFTuGmeolEzVxYD5fo/s640/map+of+southern+boundary+of+ringed+seal.jpg" width="640" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Southern Limit of the Ringed Seal Range (Heptner)</td></tr></tbody></table>Ringed and bearded seals are listed as “threatened” under the Endangered Species Act.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>There are estimated to be, in total, about a quarter million ringed seals and 155,000 bearded seals. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Certain populations of gray, beluga, and killer whales and spotted seals are listed as “endangered.”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>There are estimated to be about 19,000 gray whales and 39,000 beluga whales.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>According to the regulatory preamble:</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">“Ringed seals are year-round residents in the Beaufort Sea and are anticipated to be the most frequently encountered species in the project area. Bowhead whales are anticipated to be the most frequently encountered cetacean species in the project area; however, their occurrence is not anticipated to be year-round. The most common time for bowheads to occur near Northstar is during the fall migration westward through the Beaufort Sea, which typically occurs from late August through October each year.”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">Ringed seals build lairs under the snowpack (“subnivean lairs”) in the Beaufort Sea in the spring months.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Specifically as to how seals might be injured, the preamble states: </div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">“Potential non-acoustic effects could result from the physical presence of personnel, structures and equipment, construction or maintenance activities, and the occurrence of oil spills. In winter, during ice road construction, and in spring, flooding on the sea ice may displace some ringed seals along the ice road corridor. There is a small chance that a seal pup might be injured or killed by on-ice construction or transportation activities. A major oil spill is unlikely and, if it occurred, its effects are difficult to predict.”</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal"><table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; margin-left: 1em; text-align: right;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgYnqAunuoWemZsgz9ESoxM80rma5AERjDA3j7v_dZrsyw-aEtQYTxkKi3Vfzupm83Jb5QaJ6F5GTlKDcw9VVDoci4MFM05juIMRrHB1fu24aCdhkT02ka-prNvNdf6KltAYCtCKPAB_FE/s1600/ringed+seal+pup.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="240" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgYnqAunuoWemZsgz9ESoxM80rma5AERjDA3j7v_dZrsyw-aEtQYTxkKi3Vfzupm83Jb5QaJ6F5GTlKDcw9VVDoci4MFM05juIMRrHB1fu24aCdhkT02ka-prNvNdf6KltAYCtCKPAB_FE/s320/ringed+seal+pup.jpg" width="320" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Ringed Seal Pup (NOAA)</td></tr></tbody></table>Ringed seals give birth in late March and April, and at that time of year young pups may get close to BP facilities.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>BP is to notify NMFS within 24 hours if more than five ringed seals are killed annually by BP’s activities.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal"><b>Use of Detection Dogs Prior to Road Construction </b></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">The regulations issued at the request of BP state (50 CFR 217.144(a)(1)) that “to reduce the taking of ringed seals to the lowest level practicable, BP must begin winter construction activities, principally ice roads, as soon as possible once weather and ice conditions permit such activity.” Also:</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">“Any ice roads or other construction activities that are initiated after March 1, in previously undisturbed areas in waters deeper than 10 ft (3 m), <i>must be surveyed, using trained dogs </i>in order to identify and avoid ringed seal structures by a minimum of 492 ft (150 m).”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">In a separate provision, the final regulations state: </div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">“After March 1, <i>trained dogs must be used to detect seal lairs in previously undisturbed areas that may be potentially affected by on-ice construction activity</i>, if any. Surveys for seal structures should be conducted to a minimum distance of 492 ft (150 m) from the outer edges of any disturbance.”</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">As to road construction, the preamble explains how the use of dogs becomes important:<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">“In order to reduce impacts to ringed seal construction of birth lairs, BP must begin winter construction activities (e.g., ice road construction) on the sea ice as early as possible once weather and ice conditions permit such activities. Any ice road or other construction activities that are initiated after March 1 in previously undisturbed areas in waters deeper than 10 ft (3 m) must be surveyed, <i>using trained dogs</i>, in order to identify and avoid ringed seal structures by a minimum of 492 ft (150 m).<i> If dog surveys are conducted, trained dogs shall search all floating sea ice for any ringed seal structures</i>. Those surveys shall be done prior to the new proposed activity on the floating sea ice to provide information needed to prevent injury or mortality of young seals. Additionally, after March 1 of each year, activities should avoid, to the greatest extent practicable, disturbance of any located seal structure.”</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">It is also stated (50 CFR 217.146):<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">“If BP initiates significant on-ice activities (e.g., construction of new ice roads, trenching for pipeline repair, or projects of similar magnitude) in previously undisturbed areas after March 1, <i>trained dogs, or a comparable method</i>, will be used to search for seal structures….<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>If specific mitigation and monitoring are required for activities on the sea ice initiated after March 1 (<i>requiring searches with dogs for lairs</i>), during the operation of strong sound sources (requiring visual observations and shutdown procedures), or for the use of new sound sources that have not previously been measured, then a preliminary summary of the activity, method of monitoring, and preliminary results will be submitted within 90 days after the cessation of that activity.”</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">This is the only reference to a “comparable method.”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Other references to dogs make their use mandatory by BP.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal"><b>Hunting Seals with Dogs <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></b></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">The first use of dogs in finding ringed seals was not for preservation, but for hunting.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Dogs pulled hunters on sleds to locations where seals could be caught, but they could also find seals that were below the surface.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>A 1976 treatise on mammals of the Soviet Union (Heptner et al., published in English in 1996) describes how the seals were caught in Russia:</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">“In winter-spring, much before the ringed seal emerges onto the ice floe surface, the hunters set out with dogs in various regions, most often in the Baltics and in Lake Ladoga. The dogs help them locate the seal's air hole or lair with pups inside. Often, using the pups as bait, the hunters attempt to catch the suckling mother.”</div><div class="MsoNormal"><table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; margin-left: 1em; text-align: right;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjiqlPZeSTOzBjVPOMCs0LLhj1LAI42pENOzI27aPUOify4ghTfVkErsK_QmgM5YxuonAH_Y2m5v_EGMUNbjqFUUbvrOah19NEtG1unwMOAvXJGjZUURGvdk41K013vNfOpDc5B7h0vy-M/s1600/seal+hunt+Stefansson.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="230" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjiqlPZeSTOzBjVPOMCs0LLhj1LAI42pENOzI27aPUOify4ghTfVkErsK_QmgM5YxuonAH_Y2m5v_EGMUNbjqFUUbvrOah19NEtG1unwMOAvXJGjZUURGvdk41K013vNfOpDc5B7h0vy-M/s640/seal+hunt+Stefansson.jpg" width="640" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Returning to Camp after Hunting, Dogs Pulling Parts of Seal (Stefansson)</td></tr></tbody></table><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">According to Vilhjalmur Stefansson (1913): “By the aid of their dogs the Eskimo find these breathing-holes of the seals underneath the snow that hides them in winter, and spear the animals as they rise for air.”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The photograph from Stefansson’s book shows men and dogs returning from a seal hunt, each dog dragging a segment of the seal.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Stefansson adds the following detail regarding several groups of Eskimos that use dogs:</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">“The Coronation Gulf and Victoria Island Eskimo live almost exclusively on seals in the winter. They find the seal's breathing-hole by the aid of dogs, and wait at the hole for the seal to come up to breathe, when they kill it with a spear. In all districts the Eskimo depend largely upon the blubber of the seal for their fatty food, even the inland Alaskans being obliged to trade for a few ‘pokes’ of blubber oil annually. The summer water boots of the Eskimo are practically always made of sealskin, usually with soles of the large bearded seal's skin or the skin of the white whale. The seal oil is usually kept in pokes - bags made of the skin of the seal removed intact and turned so as to be impervious to oil. Seals killed in summer usually sink quickly, but after the last of September a majority of the seals shot float until they can be recovered. An average seal of this species weighs from 125 to 175 pounds. A very large male shot at Cape Parry, December 12th, 1910, measured 65 inches in length and greatest girth 54 inches, weight about 200 pounds.”</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">Seals could also be taken when outside of their holes, as described by Charles Francis Hall (1865):</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal"><table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left; margin-right: 1em; text-align: left;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh0VxGeuOyNrieTGjedgNqBUTC0cAtiTi3Hx4vAGP7IyPM6_jm_C6TlhqEhSMBm-1LPyC4R1GRAcHLxbkqP0ZcCZGt7-VNayy0SP9knSsImZtzK1HmNrAtRN1UWVHXYRnd6gLFdRsfpvT4/s1600/dog+captures+a+seal+vol+2.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="231" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh0VxGeuOyNrieTGjedgNqBUTC0cAtiTi3Hx4vAGP7IyPM6_jm_C6TlhqEhSMBm-1LPyC4R1GRAcHLxbkqP0ZcCZGt7-VNayy0SP9knSsImZtzK1HmNrAtRN1UWVHXYRnd6gLFdRsfpvT4/s400/dog+captures+a+seal+vol+2.jpg" width="400" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Smile Capturing a Seal (Hall)</td></tr></tbody></table>"In an instant the dogs were off toward the prey, drawing the sledge after them at a marvelous rate. The seal for a moment acted as if frightened, and kept on the ice a second or two too long, for just as he plunged, 'Smile' the noblest-looking, best leader, seal, and bear dog I ever saw, caught him by the tail and flippers. The seal struggled violently, and so did dog Smile, making the sledge to caper about merrily; but in a moment more the other dogs laid hold, and aided in dragging the seal out of his hole on the ice, when Smile took it wholly in charge. The prize was secured this time wholly by the dogs.”</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">The drawing from Hall’s book shows Smile catching the seal's tail. </div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal"><b>Finding Seal Lairs for Science and Conservation Purposes </b></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"></span>The use of dogs trained to find lairs of ringed seals has, in recent years, been particularly associated with the research of <a href="http://amcctour0809.wordpress.com/dr-brendan-p-kelly-bio/" target="_blank">Dr. Brendan P. Kelly of the University of Alaska</a>, and with students and associates who have worked with him. In the 1970s various research groups used trained dogs to locate subnivian seal structures.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The dogs were trained to follow the seal odor to its source and indicate the location of the structure by digging in the snow above it.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>In 1982, Dr. Kelly (1986) used Clyde, a Labrador retriever to locate 157 seal structures, finding an average of 0.53 per kilometer searched.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Those structures could be just breathing holes or could be lairs, with or without pups.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>By searching areas two or three times under optimal scenting conditions, the team believed that virtually all seal holes were found.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>In more recent research, Dr. Kelly (2010) has also been able to determine home ranges of ringed seals. </div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal"><table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; margin-left: 1em; text-align: right;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEipAhEc3xwnh5fkX8dcCVXT2M0aEGl89j3m5lEgdCMi_wxM4ECxj1gihml7Irh2VTlRUzodhj1gxGghK6PIxWPysaJzh9WlSOt2V5wW1h86dv4kgvfVjutuYbhvH683EjT6ynd3_xRdkAI/s1600/bear+hunt.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="481" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEipAhEc3xwnh5fkX8dcCVXT2M0aEGl89j3m5lEgdCMi_wxM4ECxj1gihml7Irh2VTlRUzodhj1gxGghK6PIxWPysaJzh9WlSOt2V5wW1h86dv4kgvfVjutuYbhvH683EjT6ynd3_xRdkAI/s640/bear+hunt.jpg" width="640" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Polar Bear Hunt (Hall)</td></tr></tbody></table><b>Polar Bear Dens</b></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">As already mentioned, polar bears and walruses may also be affected by drilling and construction activities in Alaska and are protected by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in the Department of the Interior.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Under 50 CFR 18.117(a)(5)(iii)(A) and 18.128(a)(2)(ii), oil companies carrying out onshore exploration activities in known or suspected polar bear denning habitats “must make efforts to locate occupied polar bear dens within and near proposed areas of operation, utilizing appropriate tools, such as forward looking infrared (FLIR) imagery and/or <i>polar bear scent-trained dogs</i>.”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>For a description of dogs being used to find polar bear dens, see <a href="http://www.polarbearsinternational.org/news-room/scientists-and-explorers-blog/den-sniffing-dogs" target="_blank">Kirschhoffer (2013)</a>. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>For a polar bear behavior study that was assisted by dogs, see Smith et al. (2007).<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal"><b>Conclusion</b></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">This is a case where the hunting value of dogs was turned into a conservation value for two species whose breeding habitats are being threatened from many quarters.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Not only was the value of dogs recognized by researchers, but subagencies within the Department of Commerce and the Department of the Interior have recognized the importance of dogs by requiring that oil exploration and drilling operations use dogs to determine where to conduct construction and exploration activities and how to minimize deaths to threatened populations.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Requiring, as opposed to just recommending, the use of trained dogs makes the rules applying to BP unique.</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">For suggestions and corrections, I must thank Kingsbury who once worked on the pipeline, Yva and John who lived for a time among the Inuit, and Eric who recently restored a classic dog sled.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal"><i>Sources</i>:</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">Department of Commerce: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><i>Taking and Importing Marine Mammals; Taking Marine Mammals Incidental to Operation of Offshore Oil and Gas Facilities in the U.S. Beaufort Sea</i>.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>RIN 0648-AY63, <a href="http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2013-12-12/pdf/2013-29553.pdf" target="_blank">78 Fed. Reg. 75488 (December 12, 2013)</a>.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal"><table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left; margin-right: 1em; text-align: left;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgeUtSgp-uEZwVqLEUHOFF5bQeHpu-9_4ZQ3xdVcn8cSa4o2oHBXL-PjeAF50UezcrALc9Sd9k1zGioh1MVUWaZoiiUaEHQu_iZrM9Lr592ws_E_iw0SpKg7YOIFMx3br5fHF7oA48fXrI/s1600/snow+village+at+Oopungnewing.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="376" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgeUtSgp-uEZwVqLEUHOFF5bQeHpu-9_4ZQ3xdVcn8cSa4o2oHBXL-PjeAF50UezcrALc9Sd9k1zGioh1MVUWaZoiiUaEHQu_iZrM9Lr592ws_E_iw0SpKg7YOIFMx3br5fHF7oA48fXrI/s640/snow+village+at+Oopungnewing.jpg" width="640" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Snow Village at Oopungnewing, Showing Seal Catch and Dog Pulling Young Seal (Hall)</td></tr></tbody></table>Department of the Interior: Fish and Wildlife Service.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Marine Mammals; Incidental Take During Specified Activities.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>RIN 1018-AX32, <a href="http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2011-08-03/pdf/2011-19296.pdf" target="_blank">76 Fed Reg. 47010 (August 3, 2011)</a>.</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">Hall, Charles Francis (1865). <i>Arctic Researches and Life Among the Esquimaux</i>.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>New York: Harper & Brothers.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">Heptner, V.G., Chapskii, K.K., Arsen’ev, V.A., and Sokolov, V.E. (1976, translated into English, 1996).<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Pinnipeds and Toothed Whales. In <i>Mammals of the Soviet Union, II(3)</i> (quotation at 259).</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">Kelly, B.P., Badajos, O.H., Kunnasranta, M., et al. (2010). Seasonal Home Ranges and Fidelity to Breeding Sites among Ringed Seals. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><i>Publications, Agencies and Staff of the U.S. Department of Commerce. </i><a href="http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/usdeptcommercepub/168/?utm_source=digitalcommons.unl.edu%2Fusdeptcommercepub%2F168&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPages" target="_blank">Paper 168</a>.</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">Kelly, B.P., Bengtson, J.L., Boveng, P.L., et al. (2010). Status Review of the Ringed Seal (<i>Phoca hispida</i>), <a href="http://www.afsc.noaa.gov/Publications/AFSC-TM/NOAA-TM-AFSC-212.pdf" target="_blank"><i>NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-AFSC-212</i></a>), 128.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">Kelly, B.P., Quakenbush, L.T., and Rose, J.R. (1986). <a href="http://www.data.boem.gov/PI/PDFImages/ESPIS/0/147.pdf" target="_blank">Ringed Seal Winter Ecology and Effects of Noise Disturbance</a>, Final Report: Outer Continental Shelf Environmental Assessment Program, Research Unit 32.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">Kirschhoffer, B.J. (2013).<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><a href="http://www.polarbearsinternational.org/news-room/scientists-and-explorers-blog/den-sniffing-dogs" target="_blank">Den-Sniffing Dogs, on website of Polar Bears International</a> (posted March 13, 2013). </div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972, <a href="http://www.house.gov/legcoun/Comps/Marine%20Mammal%20Protection%20Act%20Of%201972.pdf" target="_blank">PL 92-522</a> (October 21, 1972).</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">Smith, T. S., Partridge, S. T. Amstrup, S.C., and Schliebe, S. (2007). Post-Den Emergence Behavior of Polar Bears (<i>Ursus maritimus</i>) in Northern Alaska. <a href="http://www.polarbearsinternational.org/science/polar-bear-scientists/dr-tom-smith" target="_blank"><i>Arctic, 60(2)</i>, 187-194</a><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"></span>.</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal"></div><div class="MsoNormal">Stefansson, Vilhjalmur (1913). <i>My Life with the Eskimo</i>.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>New York: Macmillan Co. </div>Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12665938105899033120noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2718580891048037671.post-69128763570677705102013-12-12T05:34:00.000-08:002014-02-22T13:30:29.319-08:00Field Records Remain Valuable in Establishing Reliability of Tracking Dogs (unlike Drug Dogs after Florida v. Harris) <div class="MsoNormal">The American legal history of tracking goes back to the dark days of slavery, as <a href="http://doglawreporter.blogspot.com/2012/02/dogs-in-economy-and-operation-of.html" target="_blank">discussed by us elsewhere</a>.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>That tradition produced a case law, and principles of evidence, very different from what began to arise in the 1970s for narcotics and explosives detection dogs.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Tracking dogs were often trained as an economic activity, and well-known dogs could be brought over state lines—sometimes over several state lines—to track in notorious criminal cases.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>There was also a long tradition of prisoners training dogs, dogs that would be used to follow the trails of fellow prisoners who tried to escape.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Since these dogs were often not owned by law enforcement agencies, legend was far more important than recordkeeping. A prison-trained tracking dog was involved in a recent case in Louisiana.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal"><b>A Robbery in Natchitoches</b></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">The Tobacco Warehouse Convenience Store in Natchitoches, Louisiana, was robbed at gunpoint by two men.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Two brothers, Corey W. and Andre Oliphant, were convicted in January, 2007.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The appeal described here involves only one of the brothers, Corey, who was sentenced to forty years at hard labor without benefit of parole.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The appeal came about after the federal district court for the Western District of Louisiana, on a habeas petition, essentially directed Louisiana to allow an appeal in the case.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">The evidence at trial is summarized as follows.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">On April 23, 2005, a man with a pistol entered the Tobacco Warehouse and took approximately $700 from store employees.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The robber was described as black, with a hood pulled over his head.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>He also had a piece of cloth across his chin.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>At approximately the same time, a retired detention officer, living near the strip mall where the Tobacco Warehouse was located, saw a man with a hood over his head run through his yard, jump a fence, and get into the passenger side of a white, older-model Lincoln.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>He noticed the molding below the bottom of a door was missing. </div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">Two hours later a police officer saw a Lincoln Town Car run a stop sign.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The officer put on his lights but had to chase the car until it stopped.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The car was being driven by Nicholas Oliphant and was registered to Odell Oliphant, respectively another brother of the defendant and his father.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Knowing of the robbery, the officer asked Nicholas if he had a gun in the car, which he admitted he did.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The officer put Nicholas in cuffs and took a nickel-plated, snub-nosed, 22 caliber revolver with a blued cylinder from the Lincoln.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal"><b>Detention Center Tracking Dogs </b></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">Nicholas said that his brother, Corey, could verify that he had been at home all day.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Corey was brought to the police station and gave an inconsistent account of his own whereabouts earlier in the day.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>A determination was made to use tracking dogs in the investigation and Corey was asked to provide a sock, with which he complied.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>A tracking team was brought to the Tobacco Warehouse.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The sock was given to Officer Roy Gallien, a dog handler assigned to a nearby detention center.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">Regarding the dogs, the Louisiana Court of Appeals states:</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">“According to Officer Gallien, the Detention Center has six tracking dogs including ‘Bo’ and ‘Trusty,’ the dogs used in this search, as well as a number of puppies in training.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>He testified that ‘the mamma dog’ had come from Angola State Prison and that she had been bred to dogs from two other correctional facilities around the state.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The dogs are not certified in any capacity, and all of their tracking expertise has arisen from use at the Detention Center.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>While Officer Gallien testified concerning at least two situations where the bloodhounds were useful in a search, he provided no information concerning the expertise of anyone involved in the training, including himself. Additionally, he acknowledged that the Detention Center keeps no records concerning the dogs’ use.”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">Officer Gallien also indicated that the dogs were trained by trustees of the Detention Center.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">At the Tobacco Warehouse, Officer Gallien let Bo and Trusty sniff the sock from Corey Oliphant at about 7:15, five hours after the robbery.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The dogs tracked separately “along a route similar to what” Officer Gallien would later learn was described by the retired detention officer.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>In a later part of the discussion, however, the court states that the dogs “neither tracked the exact same trail and both terminated their tracking efforts at different locations.”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It is not detailed how far apart these two tracking endpoints were.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">Corey Oliphant was arrested for armed robbery.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The Lincoln was searched, producing two items made of panty-hose or stocking-type material. Searches of the car and the house, however, produced no clothing resembling that worn by the robber, and no money that might have been taken from the Tobacco Warehouse.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Witnesses did not pick pictures of Nicholas or Corey Oliphant from a photographic lineup.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>One witness, pressed to pick the photograph closest to the robber, picked someone other than the brothers.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The retired detention officer did not identify anyone.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Nor did anyone identify the gun found in the Lincoln as the weapon used in the robbery.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal"><b>Appellate Court’s Consideration of Tracking Evidence </b></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">The defendant made five assignments of error, one of which was the admission of the bloodhound testimony.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The appellate court noted that there was no evidence of certification of the two dogs but added:</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">“[T]he only evidence of training was Officer Gallien's testimony to the effect that much of the dogs’ training was accomplished by inmates at the Detention Center. Officer Gallien was not offered as an expert in the handling of bloodhounds, and the record contains no evidence of his training or the training of anyone else associated with the dogs. While Officer Gallien did testify to incidences of successful use of the bloodhounds, he acknowledged that no records were kept concerning the success or failure rate of operations involving the bloodhounds. When the defendant objected to Officer Gallien's testimony and lack of expertise and documentation, the trial court overruled the objection, noting that the objection would go to the weight of the evidence instead of its admissibility.”</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">The appellate court referred to the admission of bloodhound evidence as “an uncommon occurrence,” in contrast to narcotics detection dog evidence.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>While this is true, it perhaps overlooks the fact that the earliest criminal cases where dogs were part of the investigation, going back to the nineteenth century, involved tracking dogs.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The court noted that where tracking dogs have been used, issues with regard to them have not often been raised on appeal.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>This is also true, and understandable.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>As with cadaver dogs, the discovery of a body often makes the question of how it was discovered irrelevant.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>If, say, a gun from a robbery is found by a dog along the path the robber used to flee the scene of the crime, there are commonly other ways to connect the gun with the robber. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">The court then reviewed older Louisiana case law regarding bloodhounds, but found the best statement of a proper foundation for bloodhound evidence in a 1980 Tennessee case, <i>Tennessee v. Barger</i>, 612 S.W.2d 485 (Tenn.Crim.App. 1980), which stated that the handler had to be available for examination and the dog must: </div><ol><li>Be a purebred and of a type characterized by acuteness of scent and power of discrimination.</li><li>Be accustomed and trained to track human (as opposed to animal) scents.</li><li>Be shown by <i>experience in actual cases</i> to be reliable in tracking.</li><li>Have been placed on the trail at a spot where the suspect was known to have been or on a track which circumstances indicate he made.</li><li>Have been placed on the trail within a period of efficiency, i.e., before a rainstorm or lengthy passage of time. </li></ol><div class="MsoNormal">Applying these factors to the case before it, the Louisiana Court of Appeals said that “there is insufficient evidence to establish the qualifications of the bloodhounds used to track the defendant’s exit from the Tobacco Warehouse.”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The court emphasized the lack of certification, and aside from a few examples of success with the dogs, noted that Officer Gallien “could not assert any degree of overall tracking reliability because of a complete lack of records.”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">In any case, the appellate court concluded that “the trial court erred in allowing the bloodhound evidence to be introduced to the jury.”</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">The court might have also noted research indicating that tracking dogs are less able to distinguish the scents of people closely related than of strangers.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The fact that a number of brothers and a father were involved raises the possibility that the dog might have been tracking someone other than Corey.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The court did consider that the tracking, which occurred five hours after the crime, might not have been in the dog’s period of efficiency.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Many dogs would be considered efficient up to 24 hours, however, or even beyond.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>(For a discussion of the five elements listed here for admission of tracking evidence and their evolution over more than a century, see <i>Police and Military Dogs</i>, Chapters 3 and 5. Some of those elements were considered by courts during the early stages of case law on narcotics detection dogs. Thus, some courts considered whether drug dogs, like tracking dogs, had to be purebred. That requirement was put aside more quickly in drug dog jurisprudence, yet still receives mention in tracking dog cases.)</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal"><b>Certification of Tracking Dogs </b></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">The appellate court emphasized that the dogs were not certified in any capacity, that there was “no evidence of certification of the two dogs involved in the tracking,” and that there was “a lack of Louisiana jurisprudence on the subject of bloodhound certification.”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>This, the court felt, was to be contrasted with the importance of certification for drug-detection dogs, for which the court cited numerous state and federal cases, including the Supreme Court’s decision in <i>U.S. v. Place</i>, 462 U.S. 696 (1983).<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>(There was no reference to the more recent decision in <i>Florida v. Harris</i>.)</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">Although the court felt the lack of certification was important, it apparently would not have excluded the bloodhound evidence had the five elements of <i>Barger</i> been satisfied.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Those elements do not mention certification.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Two of the five elements specifically relate to the facts of any case before a court—where and when the dog was placed on the trail.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The other three relate to the dog and its background—its breed (that it be purebred), that it was “accustomed and trained to track humans,” and it be “shown <i>by experience in actual cases</i> to be reliable in tracking.”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Thus, tracking cases often depend more on a dog’s actual production in the field than any certification.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Why this is so—and that it should be so—is worth additional analysis. </div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal"><b>Complexity of Tracking </b></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">In <i>Florida v. Harris</i>, 133 S.Ct. 1050 (2013), Justice Kagan compared field records to training and testing environments, stating: </div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">“There, the designers of an assessment know where drugs are hidden and where they are not—and so where a dog should alert and where he should not. The better measure of a dog’s reliability thus comes away from the field, in controlled testing environments.”</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">The Justice observed that in the field it could be impossible to determine whether a dog’s alert, where no drugs were found, was genuinely false, or was rather an alert to a residual odor or an otherwise undetectable amount.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>We will argue in a forthcoming law review article that training and certification environments often contain residual odors and trace amounts of target drugs, but for purposes of analyzing this case, and tracking in general, it is to be noted that the situation in which the dog is placed and the circumstances of the assignment are very different. </div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">A narcotics detection dog, when deployed to sniff a vehicle or other location, produces one of three results: no alert, interest without an alert, or an alert.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>For the most part, this is a binary analysis, alert or no alert.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The Supreme Court, in <i>Florida v. Harris</i>, said that field records “in most cases have relatively limited import,” adding that “[e]rrors may abound in such records.”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It is important to understand that, for any court analyzing a tracking case, this holding should not apply to tracking situations, where the dog’s choices cannot be described as binary.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>In fact, the dog’s potential actions can cover a broad set of patterns, some of which are indicated in the following table.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></div><br /><table border="1" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="MsoTableGrid" style="border-collapse: collapse; border: none; margin-left: 23.4pt; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-padding-alt: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; mso-yfti-tbllook: 1184;"><tbody><tr style="mso-yfti-firstrow: yes; mso-yfti-irow: 0;"> <td style="border: solid windowtext 1.0pt; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; width: 117.0pt;" valign="top" width="156"><div class="MsoNormal"><b>Where tracking begins:</b></div></td> <td style="border-left: none; border: solid windowtext 1.0pt; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; width: 148.5pt;" valign="top" width="198"><div class="MsoNormal"><b>Dog’s actions:</b></div></td> <td style="border-left: none; border: solid windowtext 1.0pt; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; width: 153.0pt;" valign="top" width="204"><div class="MsoNormal"><b>Evidentiary significance:</b></div></td> </tr><tr style="mso-yfti-irow: 1;"> <td style="border-top: none; border: solid windowtext 1.0pt; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; width: 117.0pt;" valign="top" width="156"><div class="MsoNormal"><b>Scene of crime </b></div></td> <td style="border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-left: none; border-right: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-top: none; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; width: 148.5pt;" valign="top" width="198"><div class="MsoNormal">No trail found </div></td> <td style="border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-left: none; border-right: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-top: none; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; width: 153.0pt;" valign="top" width="204"><div class="MsoNormal">None or minimal </div></td> </tr><tr style="mso-yfti-irow: 2;"> <td style="border-top: none; border: solid windowtext 1.0pt; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; width: 117.0pt;" valign="top" width="156"><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div></td> <td style="border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-left: none; border-right: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-top: none; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; width: 148.5pt;" valign="top" width="198"><div class="MsoNormal">Trail followed but soon lost </div></td> <td style="border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-left: none; border-right: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-top: none; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; width: 153.0pt;" valign="top" width="204"><div class="MsoNormal">May indicate direction perpetrator took on leaving scene</div></td> </tr><tr style="mso-yfti-irow: 3;"> <td style="border-top: none; border: solid windowtext 1.0pt; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; width: 117.0pt;" valign="top" width="156"><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div></td> <td style="border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-left: none; border-right: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-top: none; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; width: 148.5pt;" valign="top" width="198"><div class="MsoNormal">Trail followed leading to location where perpetrator may have entered vehicle and driven off </div></td> <td style="border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-left: none; border-right: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-top: none; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; width: 153.0pt;" valign="top" width="204"><div class="MsoNormal">May be useful if evidence connects suspect with location or vehicle <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></div></td> </tr><tr style="mso-yfti-irow: 4;"> <td style="border-top: none; border: solid windowtext 1.0pt; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; width: 117.0pt;" valign="top" width="156"><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div></td> <td style="border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-left: none; border-right: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-top: none; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; width: 148.5pt;" valign="top" width="198"><div class="MsoNormal">Dog finds item connected with the crime </div></td> <td style="border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-left: none; border-right: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-top: none; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; width: 153.0pt;" valign="top" width="204"><div class="MsoNormal">Significant in verifying path perpetrator took after crime; item may have independent value </div></td> </tr><tr style="mso-yfti-irow: 5;"> <td style="border-top: none; border: solid windowtext 1.0pt; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; width: 117.0pt;" valign="top" width="156"><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div></td> <td style="border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-left: none; border-right: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-top: none; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; width: 148.5pt;" valign="top" width="198"><div class="MsoNormal">Dog leads to house or building perpetrator may have entered </div></td> <td style="border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-left: none; border-right: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-top: none; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; width: 153.0pt;" valign="top" width="204"><div class="MsoNormal">May lead to warrant for search </div></td> </tr><tr style="mso-yfti-irow: 6;"> <td style="border-top: none; border: solid windowtext 1.0pt; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; width: 117.0pt;" valign="top" width="156"><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div></td> <td style="border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-left: none; border-right: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-top: none; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; width: 148.5pt;" valign="top" width="198"><div class="MsoNormal">Dog leads to individual who is potential perpetrator </div></td> <td style="border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-left: none; border-right: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-top: none; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; width: 153.0pt;" valign="top" width="204"><div class="MsoNormal">Sometimes admitted as identification evidence (but see <a href="http://doglawreporter.blogspot.com/2010/06/car-bomb-fragments-hold-enough-scent.html" target="_blank">Curran et al</a>. finding that tracking may be accurate without identification at end of trail being accurate)</div></td> </tr><tr style="mso-yfti-irow: 7;"> <td style="border-top: none; border: solid windowtext 1.0pt; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; width: 117.0pt;" valign="top" width="156"><div class="MsoNormal"></div></td> <td style="border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-left: none; border-right: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-top: none; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; width: 148.5pt;" valign="top" width="198"><div class="MsoNormal">Dog loses trail but then resumes trail, perhaps even after handler has discontinued search </div></td> <td style="border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-left: none; border-right: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-top: none; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; width: 153.0pt;" valign="top" width="204"><div class="MsoNormal">May excluded under some state requirements that tracking be continuous </div></td> </tr><tr style="mso-yfti-irow: 8;"> <td style="border-top: none; border: solid windowtext 1.0pt; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; width: 117.0pt;" valign="top" width="156"><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div></td> <td style="border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-left: none; border-right: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-top: none; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; width: 148.5pt;" valign="top" width="198"><div class="MsoNormal">Dog loses field trail but then is encouraged to resume work at entrance to police station, leading to suspect already under arrest</div></td> <td style="border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-left: none; border-right: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-top: none; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; width: 153.0pt;" valign="top" width="204"><div class="MsoNormal">Sometimes admitted as station identification (<a href="http://doglawreporter.blogspot.com/2013/04/is-american-criminal-justice-system.html" target="_blank">improperly in our opinion</a>)</div></td> </tr><tr style="mso-yfti-irow: 9; mso-yfti-lastrow: yes;"> <td style="border-top: none; border: solid windowtext 1.0pt; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; width: 117.0pt;" valign="top" width="156"><div class="MsoNormal"><b>Location where perpetrator or suspect was seen </b></div></td> <td style="border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-left: none; border-right: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-top: none; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; width: 148.5pt;" valign="top" width="198"><div class="MsoNormal">Dog leads back to scene of crime </div></td> <td style="border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-left: none; border-right: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-top: none; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; width: 153.0pt;" valign="top" width="204"><div class="MsoNormal">May be admitted concerning path perpetrator took after crime (a reverse track), though may also indicate perpetrator returned to scene of crime</div></td> </tr></tbody></table><div class="MsoNormal"><br />It is evident that many of these actions are far from two-choice situations such as are faced by drug dogs, that a dog following a trail is making countless assessments of the source and direction of an odor, sometimes producing significant evidence that can stand in its own right. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>This is not equivalent to the possibility of a dog alerting to residual odor in a narcotics case.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Finding items associated with a crime, such as a weapon used in the commission of the crime or items taken from victims of the crime, should obviously not be evidence excluded merely because the dog involved was not certified. (Finding such items may also occur during an article search.) </div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">Further, tracking in the field is probably more controlled, in a scientific sense, than a training or certification test environment.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>In a typical field deployment, the handler does not know at the beginning of the trail which way the dog will go.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Nor does he or she know at any point along the trail when the dog will change course.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It is possible that the handler in a training or certification situation will have some idea of these matters.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The dog may be tracking in an area where other dogs have tracked before.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The handler may have seen the instructor or tester place objects with the scent the dog is going to pursue.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>A field assignment is, thus, often much more of a double-blind situation than a testing or certification course.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Consequently, field records of a tracking dog can be useful in assessing the dog’s reliability. </div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">Also, because the tracking situation is not binary, there has seldom been an argument to correlate the results of tracking dogs to exclude those dogs whose deployments do not produce evidence.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>A drug dog that alerts more than others in a department may be suspected of being cued, and the Supreme Court in <i>Harris</i> may have wanted to avoid having full-blown trials of dogs on this basis. Tracking situations are too diverse for such a simplistic analysis and there is no need to analogize tracking evidence to drug dog evidence on the issue of certification.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal"><b>Conclusion </b></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">The Supreme Court’s decision in <i>Harris</i> should not become a means of excluding valid field evidence in every type of police dog work.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Even less should it become a reason for not keeping complete field records, or for destroying them before they may have to be made available to defense counsel.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">Several months ago we analyzed <a href="http://doglawreporter.blogspot.com/2013/09/cocaine-on-currency-innocent.html" target="_blank">a currency forfeiture action</a><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>in which we discussed recent research on quantification of currency contamination by cocaine. Certain levels of currency contamination are expected on U.S. bills, not from the fact that most bills are handled by criminals at one point or another, but probably from mechanical currency counters distributing cocaine residue across bills that enter the machine.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>When a bill has above a certain level of contamination, however, it has a significant probability of having been associated with a drug trafficker.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> (See <a href="http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1556-4029.12097/abstract" target="_blank">Jourdan et al., 2013</a>.) </span>If a dog alerts to it, the prevailing theory is that the dog is alerting to methyl benzoate, an unstable compound that disintegrates rapidly, so the alert of the dog indicates that the currency was probably in contact with cocaine in the previous two days.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>This creates some forensic formulas:</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal"><i> High residue + Alert = Drug enterprise contamination within 48 hours</i></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal"><i> High residue + No alert = Drug enterprise contamination older than several days </i></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal"><i> Normal residue + Alert = Recent contamination, perhaps innocent as from currency counter</i></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">These formulas oversimplify the possibilities, but do indicate why this kind of field alert evidence should be maintained, and should fit within the exception that Justice Kagan acknowledged in <i>Harris</i> where a “dog’s (or handler’s) history in the field … may sometimes be relevant….”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">For any court tempted to apply the training and certification logic of <i>Harris</i> to a tracking dog, these considerations should be taken into account before there is any knee-jerk dismissal of field evidence or a refusal to allow discovery of such evidence. The reliability of a tracking dog may be best established by field records, in contrast to the general devaluation of such records for drug dogs by the Supreme Court in <i>Harris</i>. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The failure to maintain field records in this case was a sufficient reason to reject the tracking evidence.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Records should be kept and even prison-trained dogs should have records kept of their deployments, though this case demonstrates that this has not yet happened in Louisiana.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The Louisiana appellate court is right to say that it should.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal"><i>Louisiana v. Oliphant</i>, 2013 La. App. LEXIS 2386 (Ct.App. 2013) </div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">This blog was written by John Ensminger and L.E. Papet. </div><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:WordDocument> <w:View>Normal</w:View> <w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom> <w:TrackMoves/> <w:TrackFormatting/> <w:PunctuationKerning/> <w:ValidateAgainstSchemas/> <w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>false</w:SaveIfXMLInvalid> <w:IgnoreMixedContent>false</w:IgnoreMixedContent> <w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>false</w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText> <w:DoNotPromoteQF/> <w:LidThemeOther>EN-US</w:LidThemeOther> <w:LidThemeAsian>X-NONE</w:LidThemeAsian> <w:LidThemeComplexScript>HE</w:LidThemeComplexScript> <w:Compatibility> <w:BreakWrappedTables/> <w:SnapToGridInCell/> <w:WrapTextWithPunct/> <w:UseAsianBreakRules/> <w:DontGrowAutofit/> <w:SplitPgBreakAndParaMark/> <w:EnableOpenTypeKerning/> <w:DontFlipMirrorIndents/> <w:OverrideTableStyleHps/> </w:Compatibility> <m:mathPr> <m:mathFont m:val="Cambria Math"/> <m:brkBin m:val="before"/> <m:brkBinSub m:val="--"/> <m:smallFrac m:val="off"/> <m:dispDef/> <m:lMargin m:val="0"/> <m:rMargin m:val="0"/> <m:defJc m:val="centerGroup"/> <m:wrapIndent m:val="1440"/> <m:intLim m:val="subSup"/> <m:naryLim m:val="undOvr"/> </m:mathPr></w:WordDocument> </xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:LatentStyles DefLockedState="false" DefUnhideWhenUsed="true" DefSemiHidden="true" DefQFormat="false" DefPriority="99" LatentStyleCount="267"> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="0" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Normal"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="heading 1"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 2"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 3"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 4"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 5"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 6"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 7"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 8"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 9"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 1"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 2"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 3"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 4"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 5"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 6"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 7"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 8"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 9"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="35" QFormat="true" Name="caption"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="10" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Title"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="1" Name="Default Paragraph Font"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="11" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Subtitle"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="22" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Strong"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="20" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Emphasis"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="59" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Table Grid"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Placeholder Text"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="1" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="No Spacing"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 1"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 1"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 1"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 1"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 1"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 1"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Revision"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="34" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="List Paragraph"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="29" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Quote"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="30" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Intense Quote"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 1"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 1"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 1"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 1"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 1"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 1"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 1"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 1"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 2"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 2"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 2"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 2"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 2"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 2"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 2"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 2"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 2"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 2"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 2"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 2"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 2"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 2"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 3"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 3"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 3"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 3"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 3"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 3"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 3"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 3"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 3"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 3"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 3"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 3"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 3"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 3"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 4"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 4"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 4"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 4"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 4"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 4"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 4"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 4"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 4"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 4"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 4"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 4"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 4"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 4"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 5"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 5"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 5"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 5"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 5"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 5"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 5"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 5"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 5"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 5"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 5"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 5"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 5"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 5"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 6"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 6"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 6"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 6"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 6"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 6"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 6"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 6"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 6"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 6"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 6"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 6"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 6"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 6"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="19" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Subtle Emphasis"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="21" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Intense Emphasis"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="31" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Subtle Reference"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="32" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Intense Reference"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="33" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Book Title"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="37" Name="Bibliography"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" QFormat="true" Name="TOC Heading"/> </w:LatentStyles> </xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 10]> <style> /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-priority:99; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; mso-para-margin:0in; mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:11.0pt; font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri; mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;} </style> <![endif]-->Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12665938105899033120noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2718580891048037671.post-74874966837548780012013-12-02T03:24:00.000-08:002014-02-22T13:30:29.330-08:00Law Student Training Service Dogs Can Sue Law School for Refusing to Admit Dogs to Classes <div class="MsoNormal">Nicole Lara Shumate enrolled in Drake University Law School in Des Moines in 2006 and graduated three years later.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Shumate is a service and therapy dog trainer and founded a non-profit organization called Paws and Effect the same year she started law school.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> It is not clear when she first tried to bring dogs in training to classes, but her complaint stated that </span>the law school dean notified her in September 2009 that “access to law school facilities with a service dog in training would not be tolerated per the university policy.”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">Shumate brought suit in 2011, alleging that she had been denied access to classes “because she was assisted by a service dog in training.”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>She also said that a professor had denied her admittance to a cultural event being held at a local church because she was accompanied by a service dog in training.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Finally, she argued that the law school directed hostility toward her and created a “poisonous learning environment.”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The trial court determined that Shumate came within the coverage of the Iowa disability statute, but held that the statute did not grant her a private right of action.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Therefore, that court granted the university’s motion to dismiss the lawsuit.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Shumate appealed.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal"><b>Iowa Disability Statute Regarding Service Dogs </b></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">Iowa Code 216C.11(2) states that a "person with a disability or <i>person training an assistive animal</i> has the right to be accompanied by a service dog or an assistive animal, under control," in places of public accommodation and transportation.The trial court determined that Shumate's training activities were covered by this statute. Drake University disagreed, referring to the definition of a service dog that applied in 2009, under which such a dog had to be “specially trained at a recognized training facility.”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Drake contended that the statute applicable at the time of Shumate’s attendance of law school did not intend “any and every service-dog trainer to be a member of the class of persons protected" by the statute. Presumably, Shumate’s Paws and Effect qualified as a “recognized training facility,” though the issue received no analysis in the appellate decision.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>In 2011, the reference to training in the statute was revised to state that a service dog “means a dog specially trained to assist a person with a disability….” The university also noted that the title of Chapter 216C is “Rights of Persons with Disabilities,” indicating a legislative intent only to protect persons with disabilities, not trainers of service dogs without disabilities.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">The appellate court agreed with the trial court that Shumate fell within the class of persons protected by the statute, and added that “[e]nsuring access to public places and accommodations for persons training service dogs will increase the availability of skilled dogs for disabled persons, who will then be better equipped to participate in the ‘social and economic life’ of the community.”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"></span>The court elaborated that “[e]nsuring that service dog trainers have full access to places open to the public, and thereby creating a pool of well-trained dogs to assist disabled persons in navigating public facilities, advances the stated aim of chapter 216C.”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal"><b>Private Right of Action </b></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">The fact that the statute applied to Shumate as a trainer of service dogs was not the only hurdle she had to overcome.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>She also had to demonstrate that she had a private right of action under the statutes cited.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It could, after all, be the case that only a district attorney or other official could bring a criminal action under the statute.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The trial court had, in fact, concluded that a simple misdemeanor remedy “communicated the legislature’s exclusion of a private suit for damages.” <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">The Iowa Court of Appeals observed that the statutory right of “a person training a service dog to be accompanied by the dog at certain public facilities and places of public accommodation … is more than a general statement of policy; instead it sets out concrete requirements to allow access to trainers accompanied by service dogs.”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The appellate court concluded that the trial court “erred in finding the inclusion of a simple misdemeanor penalty ... revealed a legislative intent to deny a private cause of action,”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> adding</span>:</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">“The overarching purpose of chapter 216C is to guarantee persons with disabilities greater access to public facilities and wider participation in the social and business community, not to craft a criminal offense to punish those who exclude persons training service dogs from public places.” </div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">The court stated that it “would be inconsistent with the underlying purpose of the chapter to pair these robust rights with the meager remedy of a simple misdemeanor prosecution.”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>(The maximum penalty if the university were convicted of a misdemeanor would have been a fine of $625.)<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The court continued that it “follows that allowing a service dog trainer to enforce this policy by bringing a private right of action, if denied access while accompanied by a service dog, is consistent with the underlying purpose of the statute.”</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">The Court of Appeals reversed the dismissal of Shumate’s petition and remanded for further proceedings.</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal"><b>Conclusion</b></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">The case is not over.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Shumate will have to support her claims for monetary damages and the university might still make a fundamental-alteration argument with respect to the presence of dogs in training in a law school environment.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>This might be difficult, however, given that Drake appears not to have given Shumate much, if any, opportunity to have a dog in a class and demonstrate that it would not interfere with the class or other students.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Had she brought one in, and had it been unruly and distracting, then the university would have had other arguments, but this is not stated in the facts as having happened.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>If Shumate had been going to medical school, the sanitary requirements of certain environments would have allowed the university to exclude her dogs from those environments.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Law schools, however, are just classrooms with desks and a blackboard.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">Although I think the case is correctly decided, I have to say that when I was going to law school I would not have considered bringing a dog I was training with me.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I began law school at a time when cases were still recited.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>A student called on to explain a case had to stand up, summarize the facts of the case and justify a position that it was correctly or incorrectly decided, then withstand sometimes half an hour of debate with a professor over the issues. (I once worked with a lawyer who had been a classmate of John Jay Osborn, author of <i>The Paper Chase</i>.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>He assured me that he was in the same class as Osborn when the Harvard law prof Osborn fictionalized as Charles W. Kingsfield gave a dime to a student after a poor recitation and actually said, 'Here’s a dime.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Go call your mother and tell her you’re <i>not</i> going to be a lawyer.')<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I would not have wanted to have a dog at my feet, and thinking back on it, would not have wanted to risk the dog becoming restless or sensing my anxiety.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Nevertheless, that was a long time ago and law school is apparently somewhat more benign these days.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal"><i>Shumate v. Drake University</i>, 2013 Iowa App. LEXIS 1152 (Ct.App. 2013)<br /><br /><b>Additional Note</b>. I received an email from a reader who pointed out that the law school dean did not notify Ms. Shumate to keep her dogs away from the school until 2009. If she did not attempt to bring the dogs in the first two years of law school, the reader notes, she likely did not bring the dogs to classes where the severe structure I describe would have applied. This is true. Third year classes are often rather specialized, sometimes seminars, where a degree of informality is common. If there are any further orders or opinions in the case, it will be interesting to learn more about when Shumate began trying to bring the dogs to classes. We might also learn about the dogs themselves. Were they nearly done with training, or were they only beginning to be trained? This raises interesting questions. Could a fundamental-alteration argument apply to dogs at the beginning of training but not to dogs about to go to work? Also, could a fundamental-alteration argument apply to first-year Torts but not to a third-year seminar on the Law of Urban Planning?</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div>Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12665938105899033120noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2718580891048037671.post-76259499503222441932013-11-26T02:58:00.000-08:002014-02-22T13:30:29.338-08:00Do Dogs Detect Hypoglycemia? Two Studies Say Yes, but a Third Raises Serious Doubts <div class="MsoNormal">Three UK scientists, one of which is the CEO of a dog training organization that specializes in medical detection dogs, have published a study (Rooney et al. 2013) that “points to the potential value of alert dogs, for increasing glycaemic control, client independence and consequent quality of life and even reducing the costs of long term health care.” Another preliminary study (Gonder-Frederick et al., 2013), also using self-reporting, largely confirmed the results of the first study.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>A third study (Dehlinger et al., 2013), however, found that trained hypoglycemia alert dogs, when faced with swabs taken from patients during hypoglycemic periods and swabs taken during normal glycemic level periods, could not distinguish them at a level greater than chance.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It will be important for future research, and for the credibility of this kind of service dog, to determine how such disparate results can be reconciled.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal"><b>The UK Study </b></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">Summarizing prior research, Rooney et al. noted that “studies relied on owners accurately recalling past events,” meaning that “the frequency with which dogs respond may be over-reported.”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>They also note that previous studies of dogs have concentrated on hypoglycemic episodes exclusively, whereas their study also examined hyperglycemia.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The subjects in this study had Type 1 diabetes. </div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal"><a href="https://medicaldetectiondogs.org.uk/claire_guest.html" target="_blank">Medical Detection Dogs</a><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"></span>, the charity of one of the authors, has trained over 20 dogs in hypoglycemia alerting. This and other charities have used trained alerting behaviors that “include licking, pawing, jumping, staring, vocalizing and even fetching a blood testing kit” when an owner’s blood sugar level falls outside a target range, usually 5-15 nm/l. (Alerting by fetching a blood testing kit is a specific set of actions that is not likely to be accidental, but it must be wondered if owners might sometimes confuse some of the other actions with non-alerting activities of a dog.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It is to be hoped that the authors will follow with an article about the training methods used in this study.)<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>This study sought to assess claims that using such dogs facilitates tightened glycemic control, reduces hypoglycemic episodes, nocturnal lows, and calls for paramedic assistance.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">The 16 subjects completing the study were clients of Medical Detection Dogs with trained and certified or “advanced trainee dogs,” the latter being deemed to alert sufficiently accurately to participate in the study despite a lack of certification.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Subjects had lived with a hypoglycemia alert dog as short as four months and as long as seven years.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The subjects provided detailed information about how having an alert dog had changed their lives, including the estimated frequencies of low blood sugar pre-dog and with the dog, of episodes of losing consciousness, and of paramedic calls. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>All subjects reported a decrease in at least one of these categories after obtaining a trained dog. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Eight people who reported having episodes of unconsciousness before getting a dog said they did not have such episodes after getting one.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Three people reported having made paramedic calls before getting a dog but not after.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Almost all subjects (15) trusted their dogs to alert to low blood sugar levels, while 13 trusted them to alert to high blood sugar levels. The scientists explain this discrepancy from the fact that alerting to high blood sugar “is a secondary task, trained subsequent to a strong alert to low blood sugar.”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">In the second phase of the study, subjects were asked to record their dog’s alerting behavior and to provide blood test results.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The study found that blood tests for eight of ten subjects showed that a sample taken after a dog’s alert was significantly more likely to be out of target range than was a routine sample.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>One dog was apparently alerting at random.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The study states that for “the best performing dog, the odds of an alert being when bloods were out of range were 10,000 times higher than that of routine tests.”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Eight subjects who recorded nocturnal lows pre-dog had fewer nocturnal lows post-dog, though two had an increase post-dog. </div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">The authors of the study state their results with some hedging on the fact that much of their data depends on self-reporting by subjects:</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">“The population, overall, reported reduced unconscious episodes and paramedic call outs, which if accurate, is of great importance since not only does it represent increase health and safety of the client, but also potentially significant reduced costs in health care.”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>They also note that “for 80% of the clients providing sufficient data, when their dog was recorded to perform an alerting behaviour their blood was significantly more likely to be out of target range than it was during routine samples. In addition, comparison of owner’s routine test records from before and after obtaining their dog, showed highly significant overall change: all but one client being more likely to be within target range post-dog; five out of nine clients experienced a significantly reduced incidence of low blood sugars, and three of the remaining four showed a significant reduction in high blood sugars, suggesting improved glycaemic control in most clients. The two clients who showed no significant increase in percentage within target (1 and 5), had dogs which were unqualified and the clients reported to be experiencing training problems, which were subsequently resolved.”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">As to what the dogs are actually alerting to, these scientists argue that odor cues are the most plausible explanation, particularly given that when this occurs when owners are asleep, behavioral cues would presumably be few, “although changes in breathing rate may occur.”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Also, some owners report the dogs alerting when they are in another room.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Thus, it “is likely that dogs detect changes in the chemical composition of their owners’ sweat, or breath (including products of ketosis)….”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal"><b>The Virginia Survey </b></div><div class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></div><div class="MsoNormal">A short paper appearing in <i>Diabetes Care</i>, Gonder-Frederick et al. also gathered data from persons with Type 1 diabetes.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The patients had received diabetic alert dogs from <a href="http://www.sdwr.org/" target="_blank">Service Dogs by Warren Retrievers</a>, Inc., located in Culpeper, Virginia.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The survey asked how often respondents experienced hypoglycemia with no corresponding alert from their service dog.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>More than a third (36.1%) reported no such occurrences, 27.8% reported fewer than one event per week, and 36.1% reported more than one per week. Respondents reported significant decreases of sever and moderate hypoglycemia since getting a dog, though detailed statistics were not included in the one-page summary.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Subjects reported decreased worry about hypo- and hyperglycemia, and increased participation in physical activities.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The authors of the study conclude that their preliminary results justify additional research.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal"><b>The Oregon Study </b></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">In a study that did not use self-reporting, Dehlinger et al., subjects rubbed sterile cotton swab samples by rubbing them on the skin of both arms during hypoglycemic and normal glycemic periods.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>(The UK study also indicated that the dogs were “increasingly” trained “using remote odour samples collected from clients during times of hypoglycaemia” before the dog and owner were introduced.) The three dogs used in the study had been trained to press a bell after sniffing a container with a hypoglycemic swab.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The dogs were trained by <a href="http://dogsassistingdiabetics.com/Dogs_Assisting_Diabetics/Welcome.html" target="_blank">Dogs Assisting Diabetics Foundation</a> of Forest Grove, Oregon.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The owners of the dogs, and their trainer, believed the dogs were consistently able to detect hypoglycemia.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Each dog was tested with 24 samples by being presented with a sample from 30 to 45 seconds.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The overall results for each dog, and combined, are contained in the following table. </div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><table border="1" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="MsoTableGrid" style="border-collapse: collapse; border: none; margin-left: 63.9pt; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-padding-alt: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; mso-yfti-tbllook: 1184;"><tbody><tr style="mso-yfti-firstrow: yes; mso-yfti-irow: 0;"> <td style="border: solid windowtext 1.0pt; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; width: 121.5pt;" valign="top" width="162"><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div></td> <td style="border-left: none; border: solid windowtext 1.0pt; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; width: 85.5pt;" valign="top" width="114"><div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;"><b>Dog 1</b></div></td> <td style="border-left: none; border: solid windowtext 1.0pt; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; width: 88.2pt;" valign="top" width="118"><div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;"><b>Dog 2</b></div></td> <td style="border-left: none; border: solid windowtext 1.0pt; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; width: 87.3pt;" valign="top" width="116"><div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;"><b>Dog 3</b></div></td> </tr><tr style="mso-yfti-irow: 1;"> <td style="border-top: none; border: solid windowtext 1.0pt; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; width: 121.5pt;" valign="top" width="162"><div class="MsoNormal">Percent correct, each</div></td> <td style="border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-left: none; border-right: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-top: none; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; width: 85.5pt;" valign="top" width="114"><div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;">54.2</div></td> <td style="border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-left: none; border-right: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-top: none; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; width: 88.2pt;" valign="top" width="118"><div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;">58.3</div></td> <td style="border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-left: none; border-right: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-top: none; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; width: 87.3pt;" valign="top" width="116"><div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;">50.0</div></td> </tr><tr style="mso-yfti-irow: 2;"> <td style="border-top: none; border: solid windowtext 1.0pt; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; width: 121.5pt;" valign="top" width="162"><div class="MsoNormal">Percent correct, all </div></td> <td colspan="3" style="border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-left: none; border-right: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-top: none; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; width: 261.0pt;" valign="top" width="348"><div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;">54.2</div></td> </tr><tr style="mso-yfti-irow: 3;"> <td style="border-top: none; border: solid windowtext 1.0pt; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; width: 121.5pt;" valign="top" width="162"><div class="MsoNormal">Sensitivity, each </div></td> <td style="border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-left: none; border-right: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-top: none; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; width: 85.5pt;" valign="top" width="114"><div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;">50.0</div></td> <td style="border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-left: none; border-right: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-top: none; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; width: 88.2pt;" valign="top" width="118"><div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;">58.3</div></td> <td style="border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-left: none; border-right: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-top: none; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; width: 87.3pt;" valign="top" width="116"><div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;">58.3</div></td> </tr><tr style="mso-yfti-irow: 4;"> <td style="border-top: none; border: solid windowtext 1.0pt; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; width: 121.5pt;" valign="top" width="162"><div class="MsoNormal">Sensitivity, all </div></td> <td colspan="3" style="border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-left: none; border-right: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-top: none; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; width: 261.0pt;" valign="top" width="348"><div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;">55.5</div></td> </tr><tr style="mso-yfti-irow: 5;"> <td style="border-top: none; border: solid windowtext 1.0pt; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; width: 121.5pt;" valign="top" width="162"><div class="MsoNormal">Specificity, each </div></td> <td style="border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-left: none; border-right: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-top: none; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; width: 85.5pt;" valign="top" width="114"><div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;">58.3</div></td> <td style="border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-left: none; border-right: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-top: none; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; width: 88.2pt;" valign="top" width="118"><div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;">58.3</div></td> <td style="border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-left: none; border-right: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-top: none; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; width: 87.3pt;" valign="top" width="116"><div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;">41.7</div></td> </tr><tr style="mso-yfti-irow: 6; mso-yfti-lastrow: yes;"> <td style="border-top: none; border: solid windowtext 1.0pt; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; width: 121.5pt;" valign="top" width="162"><div class="MsoNormal">Specificity, all </div></td> <td colspan="3" style="border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-left: none; border-right: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-top: none; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; width: 261.0pt;" valign="top" width="348"><div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;">52.8</div></td> </tr></tbody></table><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">The researchers did not provide an explanation as to why dogs trained to alert to hypoglycemic swabs could not do so in their experimental setting.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The researchers concluded that “trained dogs were largely unable to identify skin swabs obtained from hypoglycemic T1D subjects.” They indicate that future studies should factor in behavioral effects, and should perhaps look at swabs taken only from the usual human companions of the dogs.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">I am particularly concerned about this study because a researcher with whom I occasionally work told me that he met a detection dog trainer at a diabetes conference.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Concerned that her description of how the dogs worked allowed for a Clever Hans effect, he asked to use three dogs for a quick double-blind study.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The dogs did not perform better than chance.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal"><b>How Can the Inconsistencies Be Explained?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></b></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">There are a number of ways that the inconsistencies of the studies might be explained. Chemical changes might be complex, and vary in the sweat of different owners. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Dogs trained from sweat swabs from the skin of multiple owners might, once deployed with a single owner, display different levels of recognition of hypoglycemia. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>If dogs primarily or even partially recognize low or high blood sugar from behavioral changes in their owners, this could also explain some inconsistencies.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>If it is ultimately verified that dogs recognize changes in blood sugar changes when their owners are asleep, behavioral recognition might be reduced to detection of changes in breathing patterns.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It is also possible that if dogs recognize changes in blood sugar from a mixture of chemical and behavioral changes, a study only looking only at chemical changes, as is true of the third paper discussed above, will not produce good results.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">There were many more dogs in the first two studies than in the third, which had only three.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It could be that a larger number of dogs in the third study would have produced more positive results.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>As noted above, the researchers did not explain why dogs trained to recognize hypoglycemic swabs did not do so effectively in their study.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The research used double-blind investigators.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Were the dogs trained in an environment where cueing was possible so that in an experimental environment where it was not the results were not significant? Was there a Clever Hans effect because the dogs were responding to the patients’ behavior? <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Were other controls missing from the training environment, meaning the dogs were not really trained at the level the researchers supposed?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Were the methods of collecting sweat in training and in the experiment really identical?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">Self-reporting may be more flawed than is acknowledged in the first two studies. Patients may be seeing what they want to see, or the companionship of the dogs may make patients more attentive to their own care.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> The blood samples collected by subjects in the first study after their dogs alerted were significantly more likely to be out of the target range than a routine sample. If, however, the owners recognize the change in themselves, could they be unconsciously cueing their dogs to alert, then taking the samples. </span>If this turns out to be the case, are the dogs, presently recognized as service dogs, really emotional support animals?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Since they are trained to perform behaviors related to the disability of their owners, they would arguably still be service dogs, but if those behaviors do not in fact correlate with the aspect of the disability the dogs are supposedly trained to react to, is the training still related to the disability?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>That is a legal question that, my guess is, courts will not look forward to considering soon. </div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal"><b>Conclusion </b></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">Hypoglycemia alert studies bear a resemblance to seizure alert studies in that most results to date have involved self-reporting.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>As I noted in the chapter on this subject in <i>Service and Therapy Dogs in American Society</i>, one study that videotaped two patients with dogs in an epilepsy care unit (Ortiz and Liporace, 2005) found that seizure dogs were poor in alerting before a seizure and concluded that seizure dogs “were not as effective as previously thought in predicting seizure activity.”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>These authors acknowledged the small size of their sample. Another study (Krauss, Choi, and Lesser, 2007) found that seizure-alert dogs were effective in detecting psychogenic nonepileptic seizures (PNES) but not necessarily in detecting epileptic seizures. The authors stated the cases they analyzed "show that patients with abnormal illness behaviors may seek service animals for support." </div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">Scientific discoveries often begin with anecdotal accounts, such as the initial reports of dogs that seemed to recognize that dark patches of skin on their owners were somehow disturbing, followed by the discovery that the spots were melanomas.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>This led to the phenomenon of cancer sniffers.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Rigorous studies on cancer detection by dogs, however, have led to high levels of specificity and sensitivity of 80% or more, not the anemic 50% shown here.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>For scientists to be persuaded that dogs can reliably detect hypoglycemia, there will have to be something more than has been demonstrated by survey studies, no matter how sophisticated, since these studies are inevitably subjective, sometimes little more than a distillation of multiple anecdotal reports.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><br /><br /><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">It is important that hypoglycemia alerting be verified in strict double-blind settings, and it can be expected that such conflicting results as discussed here, and the ultimately positive benefits if alerting is verified to actually occur, will encourage additional research and open the spigot for funding such research.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></span>The law should sit on the sidelines for a time, as long as dogs that are claimed to have blood sugar level detection abilities are also trained well enough not to be a distraction to other patrons or passengers in public places and transportation.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Nevertheless, even here there should be an expectation that this type of alerting can eventually be supported by highly controlled scientific results.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">This blog was written by John Ensminger and L.E. Papet. Thanks to Dr. Tadeusz Jezierski for comments. </div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal"><i>Sources</i>: </div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">Dehlinger, K., Tarnowski, K., House, J.L., Los, E., Hanavan, K., Bustamante, B., Ahmann, A.J., and Ward, W.K. (2013).<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Can Trained Dogs Detect a Hypoglycemic Scent in Patients with Type 1 Diabetes?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><a href="http://care.diabetesjournals.org/content/36/7/e98.extract" target="_blank"><i>Diabetes Care, 36</i>, e-98-9</a>. </div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">Gonder-Frederick, L., Rice, P., Warren, D., Vajda, K., and Shepard, J. (2013). Diabetic Alert Dogs: A Preliminary Survey of Current Users. <a href="http://care.diabetesjournals.org/content/36/4/e47.extract" target="_blank"><i>Diabetes Care, 36</i>, e47</a>.<br /><br />Krauss, G.L., Choi, J.S., and Lesser, R.P. (2007). Pseudoseizure Dogs. <a href="http://www.neurology.org/content/68/4/308.extract" target="_blank"><i>Neurology 68(4)</i>, 308-9</a>. </div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">Ortiz, R., and Liporace, J. (2005).<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>“Seizure-alert dogs”: Observations from an Inpatient Video/EEC Unit.” <a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15907758" target="_blank"><i>Epilepsy and Behavior, 6(4)</i>, 620-622</a>. </div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">Rooney, N.J., Morant, S., and Guest, C. (August 2013). Investigation into the Value of Trained Glycaemia Alert Dogs to Clients with Type 1 Diabetes.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><a href="http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0069921" target="_blank"><i>PLOS/One 8(8)</i>, 369921</a>.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></div>Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12665938105899033120noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2718580891048037671.post-70265987755386366102013-11-25T03:16:00.000-08:002014-02-22T13:30:29.348-08:00When a Therapy Dog Bites<div class="MsoNormal">A handler who belongs to a national therapy dog organization, as I do, is required to certify annually that the dog has not bitten anyone or shown overt aggression since the previous renewal of membership.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>This requirement is not limited to incidents that happen during visitations.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>A recent case from New York involved a therapy dog that bit a guest at a party in the home of his owner.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The certifying organization was not informed of the bite (until I sent them an email asking for comment), and the dog's certification continued for two years after the incident.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Should the dog have been allowed to continue a visitation schedule? I look at the issues of this case in a commentary posted on the <a href="http://www.animallaw.info/articles/qvusensminger2013_therapy_dog_bite.htm" target="_blank">website of the Animal Legal and Historical Center</a>.</div>Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12665938105899033120noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2718580891048037671.post-25657054144939689072013-11-16T03:32:00.000-08:002014-02-22T13:30:29.354-08:00Psychiatrist’s Letter Proves Crucial in Patient's Dispute with Landlord over Dog <div class="MsoNormal">Dr. J.L. Thomas and I wrote an article for psychological and medical professionals regarding letters that such professionals are asked to write on behalf of patients with service and support animals.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>In the article, which appeared in the <a href="http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/15228932.2013.765734?tokenDomain=eprints&tokenAccess=QPz7YX7qDYijdrJABpgq&forwardService=showFullText&doi=10.1080%2F15228932.2013.765734&journalCode=wfpp20#.UoYCS-ISazc" target="_blank"><i>Journal of Forensic Psychology Practice</i></a><i><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"></span></i>, we analyzed letters that were influential in legal cases where patients sued to gain access to public accommodations, transportation, or housing.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>We also analyzed letters that had the opposite effect, either not helping patients or actually harming their cases.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>A recent case from a federal district court in California involves a letter from a psychiatrist that was the primary evidence that persuaded the judge to grant summary judgment for the patient who had sued the landlords for failing to grant her a reasonable accommodation to live with a dog that, according to the psychiatrist, was “of much benefit to her mental state and necessary for her continued stabilization.”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal"><b>Difficulty with a Landlord </b></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">Sharon Smith suffers from various mental disabilities, with symptoms that include depression, frequent bouts of crying, and anxiety.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Her psychiatrist, Dr. David L. Friedman, concluded that she was “temporarily totally disabled,” and diagnosed her as having adjustment disorder, pain disorder, and insomnia.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Smith herself states that her mental disabilities inhibit her ability to take care of herself, get out of bed, interact with others, and remain focused.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>She also suffers from injuries to both wrists, for which she has received surgery but has not fully recovered.</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">Smith has lived with a companion dog, Layla, a ten-pound terrier.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Smith asserts that the dog helps to alleviate the symptoms of her mental disabilities, and stated in a declaration to the federal district court for the Central District of California that Layla “helps me keep a regular routine of caring for myself, motivates me to get out bed, clean, maintain relationships with friends and family, and to exercise.”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">In June 2012, Smith moved into an apartment rented by Harold and Zelma Powdrill before seeing, signing, or reviewing a lease agreement.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>She informed Philip Powdrill, a son of the owners, that she would be living with a dog, which she told him was a companion animal necessary to address her disabilities.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Philip sent a text message to Smith asking her how the dog was doing in its new home.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">On June 30, Valerie Powdrill, the daughter of the owners, gave Smith a copy of the rental agreement to review and sign.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The agreement included a no-pets clause that stated:<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>“No dog, cat, bird, or other domestic pet or animal of any kind may be kept on or about the premises without LANDLORD’s written consent.”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Smith signed the lease but did not initial the page with the no-pet provision.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">According to the federal district court for the Central District of California:</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">“Uncomfortable with representations by Philip Powdrill that she could keep the dog so long as she kept it on the ‘down low,’ … , on or about July 12, 2012 Plaintiff sent a handwritten letter to Defendants requesting an exception to the no-pet policy…. In the letter, Plaintiff introduced herself as a new tenant and stated that she has undergone surgery to both her hands due to workplace injuries, receives disability benefits, and is currently attending physical and mental therapy…. Plaintiff stated that she was unaware of the no-pet policy when she moved in and requested an accommodation to allow her to keep the dog because it had been deemed a necessary form of emotional support by her doctor…. She described the dog as ‘well trained, doesn't bark, [and] completely house broken.’”</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal"><b>The Psychiatrist’s Letter </b></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">To her own letter, Smith attached a letter from her psychiatrist, Dr. Friedman, stating:</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">“<i>Please be advised that I have been treating Ms. Smith since April 2012. As part of her psychiatric difficulty she suffers from a severe Adjustment Disorder, Pain Disorder, and Insomnia. Due to Ms. Smith's psychiatric condition, having a companion animal would be of much benefit to her mental state and necessary for her continued stabilization. I believe, Ms. Smith should be allowed to have such animal at her place of residence. Should you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact this office</i>.”</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">Zelma Powdrill replied to Smith’s letter on July 16, 2012, denying the request for an accommodation.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The letter said that Smith had given differing explanations as to who owned the dog and whether it would be living with her, adding:<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>"Your letter dated July 12, 2012, asking us to allow you and the dog to stay, indicates you are in possession of a dog in the apartment…. Our lease clearly<span style="font-family: "Courier New"; font-size: 10.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-fareast;"> </span>states no pets are allowed, therefore we have enclosed a NOTICE TO PERFORM CONDITIONS AND COVENANTS OR QUIT."<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The notice was attached, stating that Smith had three days to comply or leave the premises. </div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">On July 24, 2012, a former case analyst at the Housing Rights Center, Gabriela Garcia, called and spoke to Zelma Powdrill, telling her that Smith was a person with mental disabilities and requires the use of a companion animal to alleviate the symptoms of her disabilities.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Zelma insisted that she would not allow Smith to keep the companion dog in the unit, saying that it would result in extra costs to renovate the apartment, that dogs are meant to be kept outside, and that she wanted Smith out of the unit.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Garcia sent a letter to Zelma concerning their conversation and confirming the Powdrills’ refusal to grant the requested accommodation. </div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">Smith vacated the apartment on March 7, 2013.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal"><b>Tenant Files Lawsuit </b></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">Smith filed suit under the Fair Housing Amendments Act, the California Fair Employment and Housing Act, the California Disabled Persons Act, and on other grounds, asserting that the Powdrills’ actions had caused her emotional distress, including stress, heightened depression, increased anxiety, fear of retaliation and eviction, and humiliation.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>She sought compensatory and punitive damages, as well as attorney’s fees.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The federal district court granted summary judgment to Smith under the three Acts, meaning that the primary issue left to litigate will be the amount of damages for which the Powdrills will be liable.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal"><b>Conclusion </b></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">As Dr. Thomas and I note in <a href="http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/15228932.2013.765734?tokenDomain=eprints&tokenAccess=QPz7YX7qDYijdrJABpgq&forwardService=showFullText&doi=10.1080%2F15228932.2013.765734&journalCode=wfpp20#.UoTAuOISazc" target="_blank">our article</a>, it should not be necessary to give a diagnosis in a letter but, particularly in housing situations, the inclusion of a diagnosis has often been persuasive to courts and appears to have been so here.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> The letter was obviously written by the doctor himself, as opposed to reading as if downloaded from a website or written by the patient for the doctor to sign. It</span> avoids any overly broad statement about what benefit the dog will provide—that is, no cure is claimed.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Rather, it simply states that “a companion animal would be of much benefit to her mental state and necessary for her continued stabilization.”<i> </i><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Finally, the psychiatrist indicates his willingness to talk with the landlords if they should wish.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It was the refusal of the landlords to engage in any kind of dialogue with the tenant, to find out anything more about what the dog meant to her, to even consider that it might not just be a pet, that doomed their case. If Dr. Thomas and I ever revise our article, this decision will be included.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></div>Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12665938105899033120noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2718580891048037671.post-44304557463895877302013-11-11T03:37:00.000-08:002014-02-22T13:30:29.365-08:00AKC Test Qualifies Emotional Support Animals for VA Study: Is the VA Considering New Policies on Service Dogs and ESAs?<div class="MsoNormal">In a <a href="https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportunity&mode=form&tab=core&id=9e6875ad7287f16cf0f431bb990eac92" target="_blank">"Sources Sought/Request for Information"</a> posted on the federal business opportunities website, FedBizOpps.Gov, where government contracts are announced, the Department of Veterans Affairs says it is looking for suppliers of dogs “to determine the efficacy of service dogs in the treatment of Posttraumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD).”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The study began two years ago, but is now to be revised and expanded to include emotional support dogs as well as service dogs.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">The dogs for this study must be provided by nonprofit 501(c)(3) organizations, in accordance with Public Law 111-84, the defense appropriations act of 2009.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>At § 1077, that legislation provided that the Secretary of Veterans Affairs was to begin “a three-year study to assess the benefits, feasibility, and advisability of using service dogs for the treatment or rehabilitation of veterans with physical or mental injuries or disabilities, <i>including post-traumatic stress disorder</i>.”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The appropriations act allows the VA to “reimburse partners $10,000 for each dog provided to a veteran who enrolls in the study and successfully completes a training program offered by one of the partners.”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal"><a href="http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-111publ84/html/PLAW-111publ84.htm" target="_blank">Public Law 111-84</a> <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"></span>stated that the VA was to partner with 501(c)(3) organizations that “are accredited by, or adhere to standards comparable to those of, an accrediting organization with demonstrated experience, national scope, and recognized leadership and expertise in the training of service dogs and education in the use of service dogs.”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>As I <a href="http://doglawreporter.blogspot.com/2012/09/va-final-service-dog-rules-still-nix.html" target="_blank">noted previously<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"></span></a>, the VA has generally chosen to ignore the “standards comparable to those of” language in the appropriations act and prefers to designate full member organizations of Assistance Dogs International as the sole source of service dogs for veterans.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>(ADI candidate members are not acceptable to the VA, as stated at 77 Fed. Reg. 54372, middle column.)</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal"><b>Assistance Dogs International Public Access Test </b></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">In the Request for Information, the VA indicates that it is now going to be conducting a “revised study” and that for this study service dogs “will be required to meet Assistance Dogs International (ADI) Public Access Testing criteria.”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>This wording is curious, in that it appears to allow for the possibility that a dog could meet the ADI’s Public Access Test, which is <a href="http://www.assistancedogsinternational.org/standards/public-access-test/" target="_blank">posted online by ADI</a>, without necessarily being administered by anyone affiliated with ADI. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>That, however, does not square with what ADI indicates on its website (last checked 11/11/2013), where the organization states that the “test was designed to be administered by professional Assistance Dog Trainers,” and cautions: </div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">“Administering this test by non members of Assistance Dogs International is not authorized by Assistance Dogs International nor would completion of this test be considered certification by Assistance Dogs International.”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">ADI also places a copyright notice on its Public Access Test, meaning that it might claim a copyright violation against someone printing out and using the test without its permission.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I venture to note, in any case, that most therapy dogs, including mine, would have no problem passing the Public Access Test.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal"><b>American Kennel Club (AKC) Community Canine Standard </b></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">The reason for writing this blog are the references in the VA’s Request for Information regarding emotional support dogs.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Emotional support dogs are not mentioned in the 2009 defense appropriations act.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Neither are they mentioned in 38 U.S.C. 1714, which provides that the VA may provide “service dogs trained for the aid of persons with mental illnesses, including post-traumatic stress disorder.”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Two current House bills deal with veterans' service dog issues but also do not mention emotional support animals (H.R. 183 and 2847, both of which are hold-overs from the 112<sup>th</sup> Congress and neither of which has a good shot of passing at the moment).<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">The VA states that “emotional support dogs will be required to meet the new American Kennel Club (AKC) Community Canine© standard, which is an advanced extension of the AKC Canine Good Citizen© testing.”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Many therapy dog handlers in the United States, including me, have dogs that have qualified as Canine Good Citizens.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">The AKC announced in the <i>akcgazette</i> of July 2013 (<a href="http://viewer.zmags.com/publication/b1dd956a" target="_blank">vol. 130, no. 7</a><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"></span>), that its Board had “VOTED to approve the creation of an advanced CGC testing program called AKC Community Canine.”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Dogs that pass the test are awarded the title of “Community Canine (CMC).” The test was officially available on October 1, 2013.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>That I could find, the AKC website does not seem to indicate that the organization sees this particular test as a means of verifying that a dog qualifies as an emotional support animal.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Rather, the organization describes the title as testing a dog’s skills in natural settings, rather than in a ring isolated from real world situations. </div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">So why does the VA see such a function for the test?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It may be, that as with choosing ADI to bless service dogs, the VA has chosen the AKC to consecrate emotional support dogs.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>There are differences here from the service dog situation, however.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>By saying that only an ADI organization can create a service dog, the VA has allowed that organization and its full members to hold a monopoly on training service dogs for veterans.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The AKC tests, on the other hand, are administered by a broad system of evaluators for dogs trained by anyone.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>In New York State alone there are more than 400 AKC Evaluators according to a <a href="http://classic.akc.org/events/cgc/cgc_bystate.cfm" target="_blank">search engine provided by the AKC</a>, many within a short drive of where I live in Ulster County.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The Evaluators charge a small fee, but are generally only marginally remunerated for performing the tests.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Many tests may be parts of other testing programs, such as for therapy dogs.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>If there is a monopoly, it seems to be a fairly harmless one.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal"><b>Comparing the ADI Public Access Test, the AKC Tests, and Therapy Dog Qualification <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></b></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal"><div class="MsoNormal">Many animals that qualify under the AKC tests might be trained at levels, at least as to behavior in public settings, not much different from what is expected of service animals.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The following table roughly attempts to correlate the testing requirements of ADI’s Public Access Test, the AKC’s CGC and Community Canine tests, and a standard therapy dog test.<br /><br /></div></div><div class="MsoNormal"><table border="1" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="MsoTableGrid" style="border-collapse: collapse; border: none; margin-left: 18.9pt; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-padding-alt: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; mso-table-layout-alt: fixed; mso-yfti-tbllook: 1184;"><tbody><tr style="mso-yfti-firstrow: yes; mso-yfti-irow: 0;"> <td style="border: solid windowtext 1.0pt; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; width: 112.5pt;" valign="top" width="150"><div class="MsoNormal"><a href="http://www.assistancedogsinternational.org/standards/public-access-test/" target="_blank"><b>ADI Public Access Test </b></a></div></td> <td style="border-left: none; border: solid windowtext 1.0pt; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; width: 103.5pt;" valign="top" width="138"><div class="MsoNormal"><b><a href="http://www.akc.org/events/cgc/training_testing.cfm" target="_blank">AKC CGC Test</a></b></div></td> <td style="border-left: none; border: solid windowtext 1.0pt; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; width: 121.5pt;" valign="top" width="162"><div class="MsoNormal"><b><a href="https://www.akc.org/dogowner/training/akc_community_canine/test_items.cfm" target="_blank">AKC Community Canine Test</a></b></div></td> <td style="border-left: none; border: solid windowtext 1.0pt; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; width: 103.5pt;" valign="top" width="138"><div class="MsoNormal"><b>Therapy Dog Test</b></div></td> </tr><tr style="mso-yfti-irow: 1;"> <td style="border-top: none; border: solid windowtext 1.0pt; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; width: 112.5pt;" valign="top" width="150"><div class="MsoNormal">Vehicle requirements: remaining until release, waiting beside, under control while another dog walks past. </div></td> <td style="border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-left: none; border-right: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-top: none; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; width: 103.5pt;" valign="top" width="138"><div class="MsoNormal">Two handlers get within 10 feet, but dogs should show no more than casual interest in each other and neither dog should go to the other or its handler. </div></td> <td style="border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-left: none; border-right: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-top: none; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; width: 121.5pt;" valign="top" width="162"><div class="MsoNormal">Dog walks past distraction dogs within 2 feet while on trail, sidewalk, hallway, etc. </div></td> <td style="border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-left: none; border-right: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-top: none; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; width: 103.5pt;" valign="top" width="138"><div class="MsoNormal">Dog performs group sit-stay and down-stay; dog and handler meet another dog and dog remains in handler’s control.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></div></td> </tr><tr style="mso-yfti-irow: 2;"> <td style="border-top: none; border: solid windowtext 1.0pt; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; width: 112.5pt;" valign="top" width="150"><div class="MsoNormal">Dog stays in relative heel position, calm around traffic, stops when individual comes to halt. </div></td> <td style="border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-left: none; border-right: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-top: none; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; width: 103.5pt;" valign="top" width="138"><div class="MsoNormal">Dog remains in control while walking with handler, but need not be perfectly aligned with handler. </div></td> <td style="border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-left: none; border-right: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-top: none; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; width: 121.5pt;" valign="top" width="162"><div class="MsoNormal">Dog remains under control while handler fills out paperwork, visits with another person.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></div></td> <td style="border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-left: none; border-right: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-top: none; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; width: 103.5pt;" valign="top" width="138"><div class="MsoNormal">Dog remains under control at entry table for testing. </div></td> </tr><tr style="mso-yfti-irow: 3;"> <td style="border-top: none; border: solid windowtext 1.0pt; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; width: 112.5pt;" valign="top" width="150"><div class="MsoNormal">Dog waits at door until commanded to enter, waits inside until able to return to heel position.</div></td> <td style="border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-left: none; border-right: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-top: none; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; width: 103.5pt;" valign="top" width="138"><div class="MsoNormal">Dog remains with handler while walking. </div></td> <td style="border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-left: none; border-right: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-top: none; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; width: 121.5pt;" valign="top" width="162"><div class="MsoNormal">Dog enters/exits a doorway or narrow passageway in a controlled manner. </div></td> <td style="border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-left: none; border-right: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-top: none; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; width: 103.5pt;" valign="top" width="138"><div class="MsoNormal">Dog walks through hospital environments without being distracted under control of handler; dog remains at sit, stand, or down stay on command before door to facility.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></div></td> </tr><tr style="mso-yfti-irow: 4;"> <td style="border-top: none; border: solid windowtext 1.0pt; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; width: 112.5pt;" valign="top" width="150"><div class="MsoNormal">Dog within “prescribed distance” of individual; ignores public, remaining focused on individual; adjusts to speed changes; readily turns corners without being tugged; maneuvers through tight quarters.</div></td> <td style="border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-left: none; border-right: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-top: none; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; width: 103.5pt;" valign="top" width="138"><div class="MsoNormal">Dog walks through pedestrian traffic under control in public places passing close to at least three people; dog stays at heel during right turn, left turn, and about turn. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></div></td> <td style="border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-left: none; border-right: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-top: none; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; width: 121.5pt;" valign="top" width="162"><div class="MsoNormal">Dog walks on loose leash in natural situation, does not pull, makes left and right turns, stops, goes at fast and slow paces; <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>dog walks on loose leash through a crowd. </div></td> <td style="border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-left: none; border-right: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-top: none; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; width: 103.5pt;" valign="top" width="138"><div class="MsoNormal">Dog moves through people in hallway; dog remains calm upon approach of several people at once; dog makes left and right turn and about-turn after encountering distractions.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></div></td> </tr><tr style="mso-yfti-irow: 5;"> <td style="border-top: none; border: solid windowtext 1.0pt; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; width: 112.5pt;" valign="top" width="150"><div class="MsoNormal">Dog responds to recall command on 6-foot lead, does not stray away or seek attention from others or trudge slowly; remains under control and focused on individual; comes within prescribed distance on recall and comes directly to individual. </div></td> <td style="border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-left: none; border-right: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-top: none; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; width: 103.5pt;" valign="top" width="138"><div class="MsoNormal">Handler walks 10 feet from dog, faces the dog and calls it; handlers may use “stay” or “wait” command or simply walk away to put dog in place.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></div></td> <td style="border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-left: none; border-right: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-top: none; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; width: 121.5pt;" valign="top" width="162"><div class="MsoNormal">Dog performs recall on 20 foot lead.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></div></td> <td style="border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-left: none; border-right: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-top: none; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; width: 103.5pt;" valign="top" width="138"><div class="MsoNormal">Dog commanded to stay and handler moves to end of 20 foot lead, turns around, and on command recalls the dog. </div></td> </tr><tr style="mso-yfti-irow: 6;"> <td style="border-top: none; border: solid windowtext 1.0pt; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; width: 112.5pt;" valign="top" width="150"><div class="MsoNormal">Dog responds promptly to sit command; remains under control around food, not trying to get it and not needing repeated corrections; dog remains composed while shopping cart passes; dog remains at sit-stay while petted by stranger.</div></td> <td style="border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-left: none; border-right: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-top: none; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; width: 103.5pt;" valign="top" width="138"><div class="MsoNormal">Dog accepts friendly stranger without showing resentment or shyness; dog accepts petting from friendly stranger; dog accepts being groomed by evaluator; dog responds to sit and down commands and remains in place on 20-foot lead. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></div></td> <td style="border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-left: none; border-right: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-top: none; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; width: 121.5pt;" valign="top" width="162"><div class="MsoNormal">Dog performs sit-stay in group of 3 other people with dogs; handler leaves dog on 20 foot lead, picks up item, returns to dog.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></div></td> <td style="border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-left: none; border-right: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-top: none; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; width: 103.5pt;" valign="top" width="138"><div class="MsoNormal">Dog performs sit-stay in group; handlers leave the dogs and move to end of 6 foot leads and wait for evaluator’s command to return to dogs; also a group down-stay; dog is readily accessible for petting by patient; can approach wheelchair.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></div></td> </tr><tr style="mso-yfti-irow: 7;"> <td style="border-top: none; border: solid windowtext 1.0pt; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; width: 112.5pt;" valign="top" width="150"><div class="MsoNormal">Dog responds to down command; remains under control around food; remains in control while child approaches (but child should not taunt dog or be overly dramatic)</div></td> <td style="border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-left: none; border-right: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-top: none; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; width: 103.5pt;" valign="top" width="138"><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div></td> <td style="border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-left: none; border-right: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-top: none; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; width: 121.5pt;" valign="top" width="162"><div class="MsoNormal">Dog obeys “leave it” command around food on floor or ground.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></div></td> <td style="border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-left: none; border-right: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-top: none; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; width: 103.5pt;" valign="top" width="138"><div class="MsoNormal">Person with walker offers dog a treat, but handler instructs dog to leave it and dog must do so; dog passes food on floor and must walk a straight line and leave it; dog remains calm around playing children. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></div></td> </tr><tr style="mso-yfti-irow: 8;"> <td style="border-top: none; border: solid windowtext 1.0pt; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; width: 112.5pt;" valign="top" width="150"><div class="MsoNormal">Dog should remain composed during noise distractions. </div></td> <td style="border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-left: none; border-right: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-top: none; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; width: 103.5pt;" valign="top" width="138"><div class="MsoNormal">Dog should be confident with distractions such as dropping a chair, rolling a crate dolly, having a jogger run in front of the dog, etc.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></div></td> <td style="border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-left: none; border-right: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-top: none; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; width: 121.5pt;" valign="top" width="162"><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div></td> <td style="border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-left: none; border-right: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-top: none; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; width: 103.5pt;" valign="top" width="138"><div class="MsoNormal">Dog keeps on straight line walking past distractions, including person on crutches, person running, bicycling, rollerblading; loud noises from dropping something such as can filled with rocks, vacuum cleaner. </div></td> </tr><tr style="mso-yfti-irow: 9;"> <td style="border-top: none; border: solid windowtext 1.0pt; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; width: 112.5pt;" valign="top" width="150"><div class="MsoNormal">Dog is unobtrusive and out of way of patrons and employees in restaurant; dog ignores food and remains quiet. </div></td> <td style="border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-left: none; border-right: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-top: none; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; width: 103.5pt;" valign="top" width="138"><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div></td> <td style="border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-left: none; border-right: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-top: none; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; width: 121.5pt;" valign="top" width="162"><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div></td> <td style="border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-left: none; border-right: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-top: none; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; width: 103.5pt;" valign="top" width="138"><div class="MsoNormal">Dog remains calm in crowds and obeys command to leave food alone. </div></td> </tr><tr style="mso-yfti-irow: 10;"> <td style="border-top: none; border: solid windowtext 1.0pt; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; width: 112.5pt;" valign="top" width="150"><div class="MsoNormal">Dog remains under control when lead is dropped. </div></td> <td style="border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-left: none; border-right: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-top: none; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; width: 103.5pt;" valign="top" width="138"><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div></td> <td style="border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-left: none; border-right: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-top: none; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; width: 121.5pt;" valign="top" width="162"><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div></td> <td style="border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-left: none; border-right: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-top: none; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; width: 103.5pt;" valign="top" width="138"><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div></td> </tr><tr style="mso-yfti-irow: 11;"> <td style="border-top: none; border: solid windowtext 1.0pt; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; width: 112.5pt;" valign="top" width="150"><div class="MsoNormal">Dog taken by another person and dog’s partner can move away without aggression or undue stress.</div></td> <td style="border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-left: none; border-right: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-top: none; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; width: 103.5pt;" valign="top" width="138"><div class="MsoNormal">Another person takes dog and handler goes out of sight for 3 minutes; dog should not bark, whine, or pace unnecessarily.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></div></td> <td style="border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-left: none; border-right: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-top: none; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; width: 121.5pt;" valign="top" width="162"><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div></td> <td style="border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-left: none; border-right: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-top: none; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; width: 103.5pt;" valign="top" width="138"><div class="MsoNormal">Helper takes hold of dog’s leash but handler can put dog at stay before; handler moves out of sight; dog can move within confines of lead.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></div></td> </tr><tr style="mso-yfti-irow: 12;"> <td style="border-top: none; border: solid windowtext 1.0pt; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; width: 112.5pt;" valign="top" width="150"><div class="MsoNormal">Dog loads into vehicle on command. </div></td> <td style="border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-left: none; border-right: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-top: none; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; width: 103.5pt;" valign="top" width="138"><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div></td> <td style="border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-left: none; border-right: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-top: none; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; width: 121.5pt;" valign="top" width="162"><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div></td> <td style="border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-left: none; border-right: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-top: none; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; width: 103.5pt;" valign="top" width="138"><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div></td> </tr><tr style="mso-yfti-irow: 13; mso-yfti-lastrow: yes;"> <td style="border-top: none; border: solid windowtext 1.0pt; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; width: 112.5pt;" valign="top" width="150"><div class="MsoNormal">Handler praises dog when dog does well; dog consistently relaxed, confident, friendly; partner consistently has dog under control. </div></td> <td style="border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-left: none; border-right: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-top: none; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; width: 103.5pt;" valign="top" width="138"><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div></td> <td style="border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-left: none; border-right: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-top: none; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; width: 121.5pt;" valign="top" width="162"><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div></td> <td style="border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-left: none; border-right: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-top: none; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; width: 103.5pt;" valign="top" width="138"><div class="MsoNormal">Good presentation of handler and dog.</div></td> </tr></tbody></table></div><div class="MsoNormal"></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal"></div><div class="MsoNormal">The differences are relatively minor.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>ADI looks at dogs getting in and out of vehicles.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>This recognizes that a disabled handler is often going to need to be able to get a dog into and out of a car without any physical effort.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>People who travel with dogs to any degree will teach them to jump in and out of a vehicle, as I and most people I know have done with our dogs.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>There is also an emphasis on going through doors in the ADI test.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>People with disabilities may have trouble going through doors, and will need to be confident that, if they cannot go through a door simultaneously with the dog, the dog will catch up or wait for them.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I do not know anyone with a therapy dog who has any difficulty with this.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal"><b>Potential Significance of the VA’s Approach to Emotional Support Animals </b></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">The VA provides a table regarding the distinctions between service dogs and emotional support dogs, indicating that, although emotional support dogs qualify for accommodations in housing and air travel, they do not qualify for entry into places of public accommodation.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The table is reproduced below:<br /><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal"><table border="1" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="MsoTableGrid" style="border-collapse: collapse; border: none; margin-left: 23.4pt; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-padding-alt: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; mso-yfti-tbllook: 1184;"><tbody><tr style="mso-yfti-firstrow: yes; mso-yfti-irow: 0;"> <td style="border: solid windowtext 1.0pt; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; width: 86.1pt;" valign="top" width="115"><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div></td> <td style="border-left: none; border: solid windowtext 1.0pt; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; width: 156.9pt;" valign="top" width="209"><div class="MsoNormal"><b>Service Dog </b></div></td> <td style="border-left: none; border: solid windowtext 1.0pt; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; width: 166.5pt;" valign="top" width="222"><div class="MsoNormal"><b>Emotional Support Dog </b></div></td> </tr><tr style="mso-yfti-irow: 1;"> <td style="border-top: none; border: solid windowtext 1.0pt; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; width: 86.1pt;" valign="top" width="115"><div class="MsoNormal"><b>General Definition </b></div></td> <td style="border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-left: none; border-right: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-top: none; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; width: 156.9pt;" valign="top" width="209"><div class="MsoNormal">A dog that is individually trained to perform work or tasks for the benefit of a person with a disability.</div></td> <td style="border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-left: none; border-right: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-top: none; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; width: 166.5pt;" valign="top" width="222"><div class="MsoNormal">A dog that provides comfort or <br />support for a person with a <br />disability, but does not have any individualized training to perform work or tasks.</div></td> </tr><tr style="mso-yfti-irow: 2;"> <td style="border-top: none; border: solid windowtext 1.0pt; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; width: 86.1pt;" valign="top" width="115"><div class="MsoNormal"><b>Reasonable Accommodation in Housing?</b></div></td> <td style="border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-left: none; border-right: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-top: none; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; width: 156.9pt;" valign="top" width="209"><div class="MsoNormal">Yes. Housing provider may ask for documentation that owner has a disability and there is a disability-related need for a service animal.</div></td> <td style="border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-left: none; border-right: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-top: none; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; width: 166.5pt;" valign="top" width="222"><div class="MsoNormal">Yes. Housing provider may ask for documentation that owner has a disability and there is a disability-related need for an emotional support animal.</div></td> </tr><tr style="mso-yfti-irow: 3;"> <td style="border-top: none; border: solid windowtext 1.0pt; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; width: 86.1pt;" valign="top" width="115"><div class="MsoNormal"><b>Reasonable Accommodation in Places of Public Accommodation and Public Entities?</b></div></td> <td style="border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-left: none; border-right: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-top: none; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; width: 156.9pt;" valign="top" width="209"><div class="MsoNormal">Yes. Public accommodations and public entities may not ask for documentation, but can ask if the animal is a service animal and what it is trained to do.</div></td> <td style="border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-left: none; border-right: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-top: none; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; width: 166.5pt;" valign="top" width="222"><div class="MsoNormal">No. </div></td> </tr><tr style="mso-yfti-irow: 4; mso-yfti-lastrow: yes;"> <td style="border-top: none; border: solid windowtext 1.0pt; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; width: 86.1pt;" valign="top" width="115"><div class="MsoNormal"><b>Reasonable Accommodation for airline travel?</b></div></td> <td style="border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-left: none; border-right: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-top: none; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; width: 156.9pt;" valign="top" width="209"><div class="MsoNormal">Yes. Airline may ask whether the animal is a service animal and what it is trained to do.</div></td> <td style="border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-left: none; border-right: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-top: none; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; width: 166.5pt;" valign="top" width="222"><div class="MsoNormal">Yes. Airline may ask for a signed note from a licensed mental health professional, not more than 1 year old, that states that owner has a psychiatric disability and a disability-related need for an emotional support animal.</div></td> </tr></tbody></table></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal"></div><div class="MsoNormal">While this may be a serviceable summary of the general requirements of the Departments of Justice, Transportation, and Housing and Urban Development, it must be noted that the definitions of those agencies make no mention, and would often be inconsistent with the tests that the VA is using to qualify service and emotional support animals. The VA knows this. An article posted on a VA website states that:<br /><br />"One assistance dog advocacy organization, Assistance Dogs International (ADI), has promoted definitions of assistance dog and service dog that are widely cited and accepted by many service dog trainers, but the definitions are not universally used among laypeople or healthcare personnel nor are they aligned with definitions that appear in Federal or state laws." L. Parenti, A. Foreman, B.J. Meade, and O. Wirth (2013). A Revised Taxonomy of Assistance Animals. <a href="http://www.rehab.research.va.gov/jour/2013/506/parenti506.html" target="_blank"><i>Journal of Rehabilitation Research & Development, 50(6)</i>, 745-756</a>. <br /><br />So why was this table included in a Sources Sought/Request for Information?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It may have been a way of indicating to prospective emotional support dog providers that they should not expect that dogs they supply would qualify for the access that service dogs receive.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>This raises the question, however, of what exactly the VA may be planning for emotional support dogs that are used by veterans with PTSD. A VA webpage on <a href="http://www.ptsd.va.gov/public/pages/dogs_and_ptsd.asp" target="_blank">“Dogs and PTSD”</a> also describes the difference between the two types of specialized dogs, but says that generally “a regular pet can be an emotional support dog if a mental health provider writes a letter saying that the owner has a mental health condition or disability and needs the dog’s help for his or her health or treatment.”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Certainly this does not suggest the level of training or obedience required for an AKC Community Canine.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">Is it possible that the VA is considering a change in policy that would allow emotional support dogs to live with veterans in VA or VA-supported facilities, but only if the dogs have a level of training that will avoid their becoming problems for VA administrators? <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Could emotional support dogs travel in buses and vans that serve VA hospitals?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Would emotional support dogs have access to VA hospitals where therapy dogs are already being used?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">An even bigger question involves the U.S. Army.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>As I have <a href="http://doglawreporter.blogspot.com/2013/02/army-issues-formal-service-dog-policy.html" target="_blank">noted before<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"></span></a>, the Army and the VA have always seemed to be joined at the hip with regard to service dog policies. A major source of pain for enlisted Army personnel with service dogs trained for PTSD has been that the Army has put a ban on dogs for PTSD, stating in Army Directive 2013-01, signed by Secretary of the Army John McHugh, that the “psychological service dogs are not considered service dogs” by the Army. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>If the VA is considering recognizing emotional support dogs, will the Army also take this step?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>If so, could soldiers live on base with emotional support dogs, and perhaps fly them on military transports?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Presumably they would not be able to take them into base canteens, on the analogy to the ADA requirements with regard to service animals, but even this is not clear.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal"><b>Conclusion </b></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">Is the idea of using an American Kennel Club standard to determine qualification of an emotional support animal a good one?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It has the advantage of being readily available, and the <a href="https://www.akc.org/dogowner/training/akc_community_canine/test_items.cfm" target="_blank">AKC website</a><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"></span>says that the cost includes a $20 processing fee. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Test-giving organizations may also charge a fee for conducting the test.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>AKC Approved CGC Evaluators administer the test.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>When I and Chloe took our therapy dog test, we had such an Evaluator, who was also a therapy dog tester. AKC evaluators will not be hard to come by anywhere in the U.S.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>In my case, though going back over five years, the Evaluator charged nothing for the CGC aspect of the test beyond what was forwarded to the AKC, which then sent me and Chloe a certificate.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">This is a much less radical degree of privatization than has occurred with service dogs under VA and Army rules, and could be justified in contexts where an emotional support animal must be firmly in a handler’s control.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>There is the additional policy question of whether some greater access to public accommodations and public transportation should be granted a dog with such a high degree of control by a handler, though without specifically individualized training for a disability.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>This would require a major policy shift by the Department of Justice, however, and seems unlikely.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Still, it has to be acknowledged that the VA, whether seeking to or not, has brought forth a new idea that might provide a mechanism for dealing with the problem of bogus service animals in public accommodations and transportation. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><br /><br /><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">There is another policy question that must be asked. If the VA thinks that testing can qualify dogs to be either service or emotional support dogs, why does the agency not insist that ADI open up its Public Access Test to non-members? The test would seem to be sufficiently similar to the AKC tests that it could be administered by AKC Evaluators or other neutral testers. Testing would not need to be restricted to dogs trained by ADI organizations, which would significantly expand the potential sources of service dogs for veterans. Alternatively, the VA and the Army could ask the AKC to develop a public access test for service dogs, taking into account issues appropriate for service animals, such as getting into and out of cars and going through doors separately from handlers. Solutions exist to the current bottleneck created by VA and Army policies. It is only a matter of making the effort to find and implement them. </span><br /><br /><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">But I have expressed optimism that the VA and the Army would take intelligent directions in their canine policies before, only to be disappointed, so I advise readers to remain skeptical. </span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">Thanks to Michael Arnold and Leigh Anne Novak for suggestions that vastly improved this piece. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><br /><br /><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"><b>Additional Note</b>s. It has been brought to my attention that, on September 23, 2013, Senator Charles Schumer of New York <a href="http://www.schumer.senate.gov/record.cfm?id=345785&" target="_blank">requested an update</a> on the VA study of service dogs for veterans. He stated: "I feel strongly that the VA should provide service dogs to eligible Veterans with PTSD." This undoubtedly increased the pressure on the VA to do something, but it does not explain why emotional support animals are suddenly in the picture. </span><br /><br /><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">Someone suggested to me, I think with some degree of cynicism, that the VA may accept that psychiatric service dogs are really only emotional support animals, i.e., that it is impossible to individually train a dog to do work or tasks for a non-physical disability.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>While I prefer to believe that this level of ignorance does not control thinking inside of the VA, neither can I rule it out.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span> </span></div>Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12665938105899033120noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2718580891048037671.post-75054875268480744932013-11-01T09:00:00.000-07:002014-02-22T13:30:29.377-08:00Law on Facility Dogs as Aids to Vulnerable Witnesses Continues to Develop <div class="MsoNormal">An adult man, Douglas, is retarded but able to hold down a job.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>He meets the girl next door, Alesha Lair, who soon moves in with him, and moves in three members of her family as well.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Alesha begins to drain Douglas’s bank accounts and max out his credit cards on presents for her family and friends, including another boyfriend, Timothy Dye.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>She sets up an apartment using more of Douglas’s money, then moves out.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>But she hadn’t taken everything, so Timothy comes back to get what’s left from Douglas.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>He enters the house when Douglas is there and takes things despite Douglas’s protests.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The next day, when Douglas is at work, Dye again returns and takes everything left of any value, leaving the door open as he leaves.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Finally the law gets involved.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Alesha pleads guilty to theft in the first degree with the aggravating circumstance that Douglas is a vulnerable victim.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Timothy Dye fights the charge and is prosecuted. </div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">Douglas has trouble facing Timothy in court and asks to be able to come to the witness stand with a “facility dog” named Ellie. The trial court allows it.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>A Washington State Appellate court affirms.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Now the Supreme Court of the State of Washington has also affirmed, making this one of the most important cases in this developing area of the law.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></div><br /><div class="MsoNormal">To know more, read the article below on the website of the Animal Legal and Historical Center of Michigan State University.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Use of facility dogs is an important trend, but I fear that some courts are not being careful to limit the prejudice that might be involved.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I have no sympathy for people like Alesha Lair and Timothy Dye—the facts speak for themselves—but courts should attempt to limit the impact of the presence of the dog as much as possible.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The innocence of the dog must not become proof of the victim’s honesty.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The dog is a way to let the victim to tell his side of the story in a setting that is, for many victims, terrifying, but the dog should not by its mere presence establish that what the victim says is true.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Certain precautions to limit the impact the presence of the animal might have should be considered by courts in these cases.<br /><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal"><a href="http://www.animallaw.info/articles/arusensmingerfacilitydog2012.htm" target="_blank">Recent Cases on the Use of Facility Dogs by Witnesses While Testifying</a> (originally written in 2012 and updated periodically since then).<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></div>Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12665938105899033120noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2718580891048037671.post-61631619052615782922013-10-26T03:59:00.000-07:002014-02-22T13:30:29.384-08:00Hearings on Taking Gray Wolves off Endangered List Rescheduled<div class="MsoNormal">Perhaps gray wolves were the only beneficiaries of the government shutdown because prior announced hearings on taking them off the endangered species list had to be rescheduled.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Also, the comment period, <a href="http://doglawreporter.blogspot.com/2013/09/fish-wildlife-announces-public-hearings.html" target="_blank">previously set to end on October 17</a>, has now been extended to December 17, 2013.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>A two-month reprieve, for what it's worth.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>New hearing dates were announced on the <a href="http://www.fws.gov/home/wolfrecovery/pdf/Wolf_hearings_reschedule_notice_electronic_to_OFR.pdf" target="_blank">website of the Fish and Wildlife </a>on October 23<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>and in the <i>Federal Register</i> on Monday, October 28.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal"><table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left; margin-right: 1em; text-align: left;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiblwL1nOsCZd3-3C7BmWwP1VpLR_IidFV4EQfWJ0X1tzlOU9qQkNh-tw_nyJ-RSXhvWWOdC8mBs64SDVJLoPWN36wt3kxQ_45lIEuuE2Cr7t9uzImbQutZi0xWyhBXd1pn_EZ2PhqhZ14/s1600/2012+Mexican+Wolf+Progress+Report+photo.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="400" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiblwL1nOsCZd3-3C7BmWwP1VpLR_IidFV4EQfWJ0X1tzlOU9qQkNh-tw_nyJ-RSXhvWWOdC8mBs64SDVJLoPWN36wt3kxQ_45lIEuuE2Cr7t9uzImbQutZi0xWyhBXd1pn_EZ2PhqhZ14/s400/2012+Mexican+Wolf+Progress+Report+photo.jpg" width="256" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Mexican Wolf Pup in Gila National Forest</td></tr></tbody></table>The new hearing dates are:</div><ul><li>November 19 from 6 pm to 8:30 pm in Denver at the Paramount Theatre, 1621 Glenarm Place: (808) 405-1245.</li><li>November 20 from 6 pm to 9 pm in Albuquerque at the Embassy Suites, Sandia Room, 1000 Woodward Place NE: (505) 245-7100.</li><li>November 22 from 6 pm to 8:30 pm in Sacramento at the Marriot Courtyard Sacramento Cal Expo, Golden State Ballroom, 1782 Tribute Road: (916) 929-7900.</li><li>December 3 from 6 pm to 8:30<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>pm in Pinetop, Arizona, at the Hon-Dah Conference Center, 777 Highway 260, which is three miles outside of Pinetop at the junction of Highways 260 and 73: (929) 369-7625.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></li></ul><div class="MsoNormal"></div><div class="MsoNormal"><div style="text-align: right;"></div>Both the proposal to delist the gray wolf and the proposal to list the Mexican wolf as an endangered subspecies were <a href="http://doglawreporter.blogspot.com/2013/07/fish-wildlife-declares-gray-wolves-no.html" target="_blank">discussed here in some detail on July 8</a>.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Fish and Wildlife has already said that these hearings are for commenters to vent, not for its representatives to subject themselves to explaining their weak-kneed wildlife preservation philosophy.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>That is, they'll try to look interested even though they've made up their minds.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><br /><br />Curiously the December 3 meeting in Pinetop, Arizona, “will provide the opportunity for interaction with Service staff, who will be available to provide information and address questions on the proposed rule.”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Apparently, Fish and Wildlife feels obligated to explain why it is trying to help a remnant of the Mexican wolf population, which, as I noted on July 8, it holds out little hope for in the long run. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, RINs 1018-AY00 and 1018, AY46, <a href="http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2013-10-28/pdf/2013-25390.pdf" target="_blank">78 Fed.Reg. 64192</a> (October 28, 2013). Photograph taken from U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, <a href="http://www.fws.gov/southwest/es/mexicanwolf/pdf/2012_MW_Progress_Report_Final.pdf" target="_blank">Mexican Wolf Recovery Program: Progress Report # 15</a>.<br /><br /><b>Additional Note</b>. In the Federal Register for Halloween, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service requested a five-year renewal of its permit to export and re-export live Mexican or lobo wolves (<i>Canis lupus baileyi</i>) for breeding and reintroduction, as well as the export and re-export of biological samples for genetic studies. The Pinetop hearing might be the place to ask how many wolves the agency plans to bring into the area where the Mexican wolves can still be found. 78 Fed. Reg. 65353 (October 31, 2013) </div>Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12665938105899033120noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2718580891048037671.post-56406563047183102012013-10-21T02:54:00.000-07:002014-02-22T13:30:29.391-08:00Qualifying for Disability Benefits: Applicant's Need for a Service Dog Must Be Taken into Account<div class="MsoNormal">In <i>Service and Therapy Dogs in American Society</i>, I describe (pp. 235-6) how expenses for a service dog are taken into account in determining whether an applicant is below the income threshold for certain types of benefits, including disability insurance benefits.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> The expenses for the service dog are deducted from the applicant's income in determining whether he or she has too much income to qualify. </span><br /><br />Another aspect of qualifying for disability concerns the applicant’s capacity to work.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Generally, applicants must establish that it would be very difficult to perform or find a job.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>A recent federal district court refined this issue by holding that, when determining whether there are jobs available for an applicant, the fact that he will be bringing a service dog with him to the job must be considered.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> Thus, an applicant with the mental and physical capacity to work in a laundry may not be able to take such a job if the environment would not be a safe place for his service dog. On the other hand, working as a filing clerk in an office, where the dog could lie under a desk most of the time and keep the applicant from having panic attacks, might be just fine. </span><br /><br /><b>Determination of Administrative Law Judge in Washington State Case</b></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">Alexis Santos applied for disability insurance benefits in May 2012, citing major depression, hypertension, anxiety, panic attacks, and carpal tunnel syndrome in both hands.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The application was denied in August 2010 and on reconsideration in January 2011.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>A hearing was held before an administrative law judge in October 2011, who determined in a decision issued in January 2012 that Santos was not disabled.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Santos filed a complaint in the federal district court for the Western District of Washington in September 2012.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>That court has now reversed the ALJ’s decision and remanded the matter for further administrative proceedings.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">The administrative law judge (ALJ) determined that Santos could perform “medium work,” which might include occasionally climbing ladders, ropes, and scaffolds, and could “perform frequent handling and fingering with both hands and should avoid concentrated exposure to vibrations and hazards.”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Further, he could “perform simple, repetitive tasks with no public interaction and without a requirement to perform teamwork with co-workers.”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">The ALJ based these conclusions on the testimony of psychologists employed by or consulting with the Washington State Social Security office, but Santos argued to the federal district court that the ALJ had failed to include mental functional limitations mentioned by the psychologists. The federal district court agreed and said that if a claimant such as Santos cannot perform work of a sort that he had previously done, the ALJ “must show that there are a significant number of jobs in the national economy the claimant can do.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>One vocational expert had indicated that given his “residual functional capacity,” Santos could be a laundry worker, warehouse laborer, mailroom clerk, or office helper.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal"><b>Federal District Court Analysis </b><br /><br />Santos argued that the ALJ had also failed to take into account his use of a service dog.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The state Social Security administration responded that the record did not indicate that Santos’s use of a service dog had been of significant benefit to him in terms of his mental health symptoms. (As <a href="http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/15228932.2013.765734?tokenDomain=eprints&tokenAccess=QPz7YX7qDYijdrJABpgq&forwardService=showFullText&doi=10.1080%2F15228932.2013.765734&journalCode=wfpp20#.UmKryRASazc" target="_blank">Dr. Thomas and I have pointed out</a>, there is almost no evidence that service animals have curative powers, but some evidence that they make having a disease or condition more tolerable.) <br /><br />The federal district court noted that the record indicated that Santos’s panic attacks appeared to be controlled with the help of his service dog, and there was evidence that there had been no panic attacks or agoraphobia since Santos got the dog.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>A service dog was not originally prescribed for him, but Douglas Green, MD., subsequently did provide a letter for one.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>(A search of the PACER system database indicated that most documents in the federal district court record were sealed for privacy reasons and the letter was not available.) The court noted:</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">“[T]he vocational expert testified that in regard to the warehouse laborer and laundry worker jobs, having a service dog in the workplace ‘would probably be an accommodation,’ and that it would ‘[n]ot likely [be allowed] in a warehouse or a laundry.’ … Thus, to the extent that plaintiff would be required to have a service dog at work both of those jobs likely would be eliminated. The vocational expert went on to testify that it was ‘not impossible to consider the mailroom clerk [job] as a possibility for’ use of a service dog, and that ‘[o]ther work’ in that respect ‘would be something like an office helper’ … but clearly this testimony is less than conclusive in that regard. Nor did the vocational expert, as plaintiff also points out, testify as to how many of the mailroom clerk and office helper jobs she identified would accommodate use of a service dog.”</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">The court noted that a mailroom clerk would not be appropriate for another reason, namely that Santos did not have the needed reasoning level.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The court concluded: </div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">“[T]here is at least some evidence in the record that plaintiff’s use of a service dog is medically necessary. There also is evidence in the record that failure to accommodate the use thereof may have a significant adverse impact on the ability of plaintiff to function mentally, including in the workplace.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Such evidence constitutes significant probative evidence that the ALJ should have discussed in her decision, but failed to do so…. This failure on the part of the ALJ thus constitutes reversible error.”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal"><b>Conclusion</b><br /><br />Because of the remand, Santos could still lose the case if the Washington Social Security agency determines that, even taking the service dog and other factors into account, he could still find work.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>More and more work environments are getting used to the idea of having employees who come with service dogs, so it is not impossible that Santos will still be denied disability benefits.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">The case is important in showing that an applicant for disability benefits has the right to have the use of a service dog taken into account in determining the availability of potential jobs.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>There are a number of situations where the work environment would be fundamentally altered by the presence of a dog, even a service dog, and equipment and other factors might actually be dangerous for the animal, but there are also many office and other jobs where a service dog could and should be easily accommodated.<br /><br /><i>Santos v. Colvin</i>, <a href="http://dockets.justia.com/docket/washington/wawdce/3:2013cv05498/193706/" target="_blank">3:12-cv-05827-KLS</a>, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 130810 (W.D. Wash. 2013) </div>Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12665938105899033120noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2718580891048037671.post-43302976404835352722013-10-16T03:03:00.000-07:002014-02-22T13:30:29.439-08:00Sniffing Car Trunks and Tennis Shoes: How an Arson Dog Helped Catch a Serial Arsonist <div class="MsoNormal">Accelerant detection dogs are usually used at fire scenes to make an initial—sometimes the only—determination that gasoline or another accelerant was used to start a fire.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>In a case coming out of Maryland in September, however, the dog was used to identify accelerants on and inside a car belonging to a suspect, in his bedroom, and on shoes he wore when attempting to set fire to a car in the driveway of the house where a former girlfriend lived.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Although a Maryland appellate court determined that the testimony of the handler of the arson dog was improperly admitted—because he had given expert opinions without being qualified as an expert under Maryland evidentiary procedures—the court excused this as harmless error.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal"><b>Fires in the Night </b></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">At about 1 a.m. on the morning on November 15, 2009, Jeffrey Byers saw fire coming through the front of his detached, two-car garage and its three-bedroom loft.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>He alerted his wife and daughter and called the fire department.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The garage was engulfed by the blaze but the firemen who arrived kept the fire from spreading to the main house.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The police were informed because the fire was deemed suspicious.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>A fire official concluded that the fire was probably set by human hand and the fire department installed surveillance cameras around the home, but subsequently removed them on April 3, 2010. </div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">On April 4, 2010, Byers awoke around 3 a.m. and found his house full of smoke.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>He saw the roof above the dining room on fire in two places and his wife called 911.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Byers got a water hose and attempted to extinguish the flames.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>A fireman who arrived detected a strong smell of accelerant.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Law enforcement officials collected samples of burned wood, tar paper, pieces of roofing, soil, and debris for testing.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Unburned roofing was taken as a control.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Everything but the unburned roofing contained gasoline.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">A scriptwriter turning this case into a segment of, say, <i>Rizzoli and Isles</i>, would make much of the fact that the cameras came down on April 3 and the horror resumed on April 4, but the court does not.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Presumably the perpetrator was watching the house, though for plot structure I suspect that he would be found to have a friend in the fire department, or even be in the fire department himself.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">What the family did next is described by the court as follows:</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">“Following the fire of April 4, 2010, the Byers family replaced the two-camera surveillance system they originally used at their residence with an eight-camera system and a built-in DVR. Mr. Byers purchased an additional four cameras, resulting in a twelve-camera surveillance system that monitored the entire perimeter of the Byers' residence. The system was equipped with infrared motion detection and recording capabilities that enabled the Byers to remotely survey the home. Additionally, Mr. and Ms. Byers began sleeping in shifts to monitor the security of their home.”</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">On May 16, at approximately 1 a.m., Yolanda Byers, Jeffrey’s wife, was watching the surveillance camera when she saw someone walking go from the street into the driveway.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The individual was wearing a hood and a mask and carrying a container.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>He began dousing the vehicle with liquid.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The family gathered at the living room window and began shouting at the man to leave, but he gave them the finger.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>He initially dropped a bag and the container but then picked them up and began running away.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Jasmine, the Byers’ daughter, based on the man’s posture, walk, and body frame, thought that he was a former boyfriend from high school.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>When the police arrived, they saw the family’s car had been doused with gasoline.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The family gave the police the name and address of the person they suspected.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal"><b>Police Pursue Lead with Arson Dog </b></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">Investigator Robert Kaleda and another officer drove to the suspect’s house and performed “an exterior canine scan” of the suspect’s vehicle.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The dog, Joy, “had two positive alerts to the presence of accelerants: (1) at the driver’s door handle, and (2) at the trunk’s keyhole.”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">The officers could have applied for a warrant because of the dog’s alerts to the car, but decided to knock on the door of the house.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The suspect answered the door.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>When the officers entered the house, they smelled a strong odor of gasoline and placed William Simpson III under arrest. The suspect consented to a canine search of his person and a canine and physical search of his vehicle.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The dog alerted to the presence of accelerants in the trunk and underneath the driver’s seat.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">The suspect and his father also consented to a canine search of the suspect’s bedroom and the laundry room.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The dog alerted to a pair of athletic shoes in the suspect’s closet.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>An analysis by gas chromatography-mass spectrometry indicated the presence of gasoline on the shoes.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>(It would seem that gasoline might also have been detected on the suspect’s mask and other clothing but the opinion makes no further mention of these items.)<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">After being read his <i>Miranda</i> rights, the suspect admitted he had poured gasoline on the Byers’ vehicle and was going to ignite it with a lighter in his front pocket.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>He also admitted setting the prior fires.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>In addition he wrote a statement about the crimes.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>At trial he was convicted of attempted second degree arson and sentenced to ten years in prison.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">Various issues were raised on appeal, and the Maryland Special Court of Appeals reviewed trial evidence. </div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal"><b>Canine Training </b></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">Investigator Kaleda testified regarding the training he received with Joy, his canine partner.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Their initial training was at the BATF Canine Academy in Front Royal, Virginia.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>He testified:</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">“The initial training is pretty much cans, similar to these, and there is substances put in the cans. Some have odor on them and some do not. And when I say ‘odor,’ of hydrocarbon-based fuel. The dog repetitively goes over them hundreds of times a day to distinguish between the products and the products with fuel.”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">Officer Kaleda explained that Joy had completed BATF training before she was assigned to him.</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">“[W]hen we receive the dogs, they are already imprinted, which is the process of where they are trained to the odors. They know that before we get there. They, indeed, have -- and the ATF training staff does that for about 8 weeks, I believe, before we get there. So our six-week program is just pretty much acclimating, and being able to learn how to distinguish what the dog is doing.”</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">He also explained what Joy does when she detects a target odor:</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">“[H]er behavior will change when she gets in the area of an odor, and she will sniff more rapidly, she'll move around a little more quickly.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>When she finds the highest concentration of odor, she will sit and she'll put her nose on it, and then she'll be fed. I will ask her to show me the location and she'll put her nose on the highest concentration of odor.”</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal"><b>Was the Handler an Expert? </b></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">When Officer Kaleda began to testify regarding use of the dog in the case at trial, the defense objected that he had not been qualified as an expert.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Although overruled, the trial court allowed a standing objection to be recorded.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The appellate court concluded that it was, in fact, error to admit the officer’s testimony without qualifying him as an expert, but determined that the error was “harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The appellate court stated that “an officer’s observations of his/her detection canine qualifies as expert testimony.”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>A significant part of the court’s analysis concerned a previous Maryland case, <i>Terrell v. Maryland</i>, 3 Md. App.340, 239 A.2s 128 (1968), an important tracking case because of its extensive discussion of the history of tracking law (referred to numerous times in <i>Police and Military Dogs</i>).<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal"><b>Conclusion </b></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">The failure to qualify the arson canine’s handler as an expert was an oversight that should not be waived in subsequent trials of this sort in Maryland, but is the correct decision here.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The appellate court included long excerpts from the trial transcript, probably to demonstrate that if the prosecutor had made the effort, Officer Kaleda could have been qualified as an expert by the trial judge.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">The case is important for showing that arson dogs may provide valuable evidence when deployed at locations other than the location of a fire.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Whether the canine evidence would have held up without laboratory confirmation of the presence of gasoline on the defendant’s car and his shoes is a separate issue, but fortunately for the prosecution was not in question here.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal"><i>Simpson III v. State of Maryland</i>, 2013 Md. App. LEXIS 134 (Ct. of Special Appeals, 2013)</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">This blog was written by John Ensminger and L.E. Papet. </div>Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12665938105899033120noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2718580891048037671.post-74722007212837910692013-10-10T13:06:00.000-07:002014-02-22T13:30:29.491-08:00More on the Cancer Sniffers: Dogs vs. Electronic Noses <div class="MsoNormal">Dogs have been taught to screen for cancer, alerting to individuals who may have a cancer but whose diagnosis will have to be verified by biopsy and histopathology.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>A review article recently appearing in <i>The Netherlands Journal of Medicine</i> (Bijland et al., 2013) finds that electronic noses, at least as to the detection of some cancers, may be better than dogs.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Nevertheless, recent studies on lung and ovarian cancer found dogs uniquely effective, and able to detect smaller concentrations of cancer odors than any other technique.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>While most studies continue to suggest that clinical deployment of cancer-smelling canines remains a possibility, researchers continue to emphasize that only more research can make dogs a clinical diagnostic tool.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Also, deploying dogs in medical environments faces hurdles that will not be presented to electronic noses.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal"><b>How Cancers Produce Unique Odors</b></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">An editorial by three scientists (Leja et al. 2013) regarding using scent as a diagnostic tool explains that volatile organic compounds (VOCs) are released from cancer cells or metabolic processes associated with cancer growth.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>“These VOCs are transported with the blood to the alveoli of the lung from where they are exhaled in measurable odorants.”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Thus, cancer has a smell, and “at least in theory, different cancers have different smells.” <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The editorial describes an electronic nose as follows:</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">“The olfactory receptors of the mammalian nose are mimicked by an array of highly sensitive gas sensors.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Like biological receptors, these sensors can each absorb a wide variety of VOCs from the gas phase. The collective sensing signals are statistically analyzed, using pattern recognition algorithms that have previously been trained how to identify a particular smell by controlled exposures in the laboratory. Once established, the electronic patterns of disease allow classifying unknown breath samples from patients or healthy subjects. However, the development of suitable gas sensors for breath testing is technically challenging, because the sensors should be able to detect the delicate smell of diseases such as cancer in the humid atmosphere of exhaled breath albeit strong individual variations of the breath-humidity levels between persons.” (Leja et al.)</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal"><b>Comparing E-Noses and Animals in Disease Identification </b></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">Bijland et al. searched various databases for “key studies in scent detection” and found 168 papers, some of which involved electronic noses (e-noses) and other non-canine detection approaches for diseases.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>They reviewed studies where scent was used in the detection of lung, ovarian, breast, bladder, colorectal, and melanoma cancers.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>This review article compared e-nose studies with studies involving animals, particularly dogs.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>As shown in the following table, adapted from the study, in some cancers, such as bladder cancer, e-noses outperformed dogs, but in others, such as breast cancer, dogs were more successful.</div><div class="MsoNormal"><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:WordDocument> <w:View>Normal</w:View> <w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom> <w:TrackMoves/> <w:TrackFormatting/> <w:PunctuationKerning/> <w:ValidateAgainstSchemas/> <w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>false</w:SaveIfXMLInvalid> <w:IgnoreMixedContent>false</w:IgnoreMixedContent> <w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>false</w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText> <w:DoNotPromoteQF/> <w:LidThemeOther>EN-US</w:LidThemeOther> <w:LidThemeAsian>X-NONE</w:LidThemeAsian> <w:LidThemeComplexScript>HE</w:LidThemeComplexScript> <w:Compatibility> <w:BreakWrappedTables/> <w:SnapToGridInCell/> <w:WrapTextWithPunct/> <w:UseAsianBreakRules/> <w:DontGrowAutofit/> <w:SplitPgBreakAndParaMark/> <w:EnableOpenTypeKerning/> <w:DontFlipMirrorIndents/> <w:OverrideTableStyleHps/> </w:Compatibility> <m:mathPr> <m:mathFont m:val="Cambria Math"/> <m:brkBin m:val="before"/> <m:brkBinSub m:val="--"/> <m:smallFrac m:val="off"/> <m:dispDef/> <m:lMargin m:val="0"/> <m:rMargin m:val="0"/> <m:defJc m:val="centerGroup"/> <m:wrapIndent m:val="1440"/> <m:intLim m:val="subSup"/> <m:naryLim m:val="undOvr"/> </m:mathPr></w:WordDocument> </xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:LatentStyles DefLockedState="false" DefUnhideWhenUsed="true" DefSemiHidden="true" DefQFormat="false" DefPriority="99" LatentStyleCount="267"> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="0" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Normal"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="heading 1"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 2"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 3"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 4"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 5"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 6"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 7"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 8"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 9"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 1"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 2"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 3"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 4"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 5"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 6"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 7"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 8"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 9"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="35" QFormat="true" Name="caption"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="10" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Title"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="1" Name="Default Paragraph Font"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="11" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Subtitle"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="22" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Strong"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="20" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Emphasis"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="59" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Table Grid"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Placeholder Text"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="1" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="No Spacing"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 1"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 1"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 1"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 1"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 1"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 1"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Revision"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="34" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="List Paragraph"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="29" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Quote"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="30" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Intense Quote"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 1"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 1"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 1"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 1"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 1"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 1"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 1"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 1"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 2"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 2"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 2"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 2"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 2"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 2"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 2"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 2"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 2"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 2"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 2"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 2"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 2"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 2"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 3"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 3"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 3"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 3"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 3"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 3"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 3"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 3"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 3"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 3"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 3"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 3"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 3"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 3"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 4"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 4"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 4"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 4"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 4"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 4"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 4"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 4"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 4"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 4"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 4"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 4"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 4"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 4"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 5"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 5"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 5"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 5"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 5"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 5"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 5"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 5"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 5"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 5"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 5"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 5"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 5"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 5"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 6"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 6"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 6"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 6"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 6"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 6"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 6"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 6"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 6"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 6"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 6"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 6"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 6"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 6"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="19" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Subtle Emphasis"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="21" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Intense Emphasis"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="31" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Subtle Reference"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="32" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Intense Reference"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="33" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Book Title"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="37" Name="Bibliography"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" QFormat="true" Name="TOC Heading"/> </w:LatentStyles> </xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 10]> <style> /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-priority:99; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; mso-para-margin:0in; mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:11.0pt; font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri; mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;} table.MsoTableGrid {mso-style-name:"Table Grid"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-priority:59; mso-style-unhide:no; border:solid windowtext 1.0pt; mso-border-alt:solid windowtext .5pt; mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; mso-border-insideh:.5pt solid windowtext; mso-border-insidev:.5pt solid windowtext; mso-para-margin:0in; mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:11.0pt; font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri; mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;} </style> <![endif]--> <br /><table border="1" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="MsoTableGrid" style="border-collapse: collapse; border: none; margin-left: 23.4pt; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-padding-alt: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; mso-yfti-tbllook: 1184;"><tbody><tr style="mso-yfti-firstrow: yes; mso-yfti-irow: 0;"> <td style="border: solid windowtext 1.0pt; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; width: 96.3pt;" valign="top" width="128"><div class="MsoNormal"><b>Cancer </b></div></td> <td style="border-left: none; border: solid windowtext 1.0pt; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; width: 92.7pt;" valign="top" width="124"><div class="MsoNormal"><b>Type of Nose </b></div></td> <td style="border-left: none; border: solid windowtext 1.0pt; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; width: 1.25in;" valign="top" width="120"><div class="MsoNormal"><b>Type of Sample </b></div></td> <td style="border-left: none; border: solid windowtext 1.0pt; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; width: 108.7pt;" valign="top" width="145"><div class="MsoNormal"><b>Sensitivity/<i>Specificity</i></b></div></td> </tr><tr style="mso-yfti-irow: 1;"> <td rowspan="5" style="border-top: none; border: solid windowtext 1.0pt; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; width: 96.3pt;" valign="top" width="128"><div class="MsoNormal">Lung</div></td> <td style="border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-left: none; border-right: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-top: none; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; width: 92.7pt;" valign="top" width="124"><div class="MsoNormal">Dog</div></td> <td style="border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-left: none; border-right: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-top: none; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; width: 1.25in;" valign="top" width="120"><div class="MsoNormal">Breath</div></td> <td style="border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-left: none; border-right: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-top: none; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; width: 108.7pt;" valign="top" width="145"><div class="MsoNormal">71%/<i>93%</i></div></td> </tr><tr style="mso-yfti-irow: 2;"> <td style="border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-left: none; border-right: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-top: none; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; width: 92.7pt;" valign="top" width="124"><div class="MsoNormal">E-nose</div></td> <td style="border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-left: none; border-right: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-top: none; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; width: 1.25in;" valign="top" width="120"><div class="MsoNormal">Breath</div></td> <td style="border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-left: none; border-right: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-top: none; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; width: 108.7pt;" valign="top" width="145"><div class="MsoNormal">71%/<i>100%</i></div></td> </tr><tr style="mso-yfti-irow: 3;"> <td style="border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-left: none; border-right: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-top: none; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; width: 92.7pt;" valign="top" width="124"><div class="MsoNormal">E-nose</div></td> <td style="border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-left: none; border-right: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-top: none; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; width: 1.25in;" valign="top" width="120"><div class="MsoNormal">Breath</div></td> <td style="border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-left: none; border-right: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-top: none; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; width: 108.7pt;" valign="top" width="145"><div class="MsoNormal">85%/<i>100%</i></div></td> </tr><tr style="mso-yfti-irow: 4;"> <td style="border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-left: none; border-right: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-top: none; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; width: 92.7pt;" valign="top" width="124"><div class="MsoNormal">E-nose</div></td> <td style="border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-left: none; border-right: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-top: none; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; width: 1.25in;" valign="top" width="120"><div class="MsoNormal">Breath </div></td> <td style="border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-left: none; border-right: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-top: none; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; width: 108.7pt;" valign="top" width="145"><div class="MsoNormal">94% success rate</div></td> </tr><tr style="mso-yfti-irow: 5;"> <td style="border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-left: none; border-right: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-top: none; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; width: 92.7pt;" valign="top" width="124"><div class="MsoNormal">E-nose </div></td> <td style="border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-left: none; border-right: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-top: none; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; width: 1.25in;" valign="top" width="120"><div class="MsoNormal">Breath </div></td> <td style="border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-left: none; border-right: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-top: none; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; width: 108.7pt;" valign="top" width="145"><div class="MsoNormal">71%/<i>92%</i></div></td> </tr><tr style="mso-yfti-irow: 6;"> <td rowspan="2" style="border-top: none; border: solid windowtext 1.0pt; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; width: 96.3pt;" valign="top" width="128"><div class="MsoNormal">Ovarian </div></td> <td style="border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-left: none; border-right: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-top: none; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; width: 92.7pt;" valign="top" width="124"><div class="MsoNormal">Dog</div></td> <td style="border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-left: none; border-right: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-top: none; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; width: 1.25in;" valign="top" width="120"><div class="MsoNormal">Tissue and blood </div></td> <td style="border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-left: none; border-right: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-top: none; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; width: 108.7pt;" valign="top" width="145"><div class="MsoNormal">Tissue: 99%/<i>97%</i></div><div class="MsoNormal">Blood: 100%/<i>98%</i></div></td> </tr><tr style="mso-yfti-irow: 7;"> <td style="border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-left: none; border-right: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-top: none; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; width: 92.7pt;" valign="top" width="124"><div class="MsoNormal">E-nose</div></td> <td style="border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-left: none; border-right: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-top: none; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; width: 1.25in;" valign="top" width="120"><div class="MsoNormal">Tissue</div></td> <td style="border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-left: none; border-right: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-top: none; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; width: 108.7pt;" valign="top" width="145"><div class="MsoNormal">84%/<i>87%</i></div></td> </tr><tr style="mso-yfti-irow: 8;"> <td rowspan="3" style="border-top: none; border: solid windowtext 1.0pt; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; width: 96.3pt;" valign="top" width="128"><div class="MsoNormal">Breast</div></td> <td style="border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-left: none; border-right: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-top: none; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; width: 92.7pt;" valign="top" width="124"><div class="MsoNormal">Dog</div></td> <td style="border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-left: none; border-right: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-top: none; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; width: 1.25in;" valign="top" width="120"><div class="MsoNormal">Breath</div></td> <td style="border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-left: none; border-right: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-top: none; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; width: 108.7pt;" valign="top" width="145"><div class="MsoNormal">88%/<i>98%</i></div></td> </tr><tr style="mso-yfti-irow: 9;"> <td style="border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-left: none; border-right: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-top: none; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; width: 92.7pt;" valign="top" width="124"><div class="MsoNormal">E-nose</div></td> <td style="border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-left: none; border-right: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-top: none; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; width: 1.25in;" valign="top" width="120"><div class="MsoNormal">Breath</div></td> <td style="border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-left: none; border-right: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-top: none; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; width: 108.7pt;" valign="top" width="145"><div class="MsoNormal">94%/<i>74%</i></div></td> </tr><tr style="mso-yfti-irow: 10;"> <td style="border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-left: none; border-right: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-top: none; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; width: 92.7pt;" valign="top" width="124"><div class="MsoNormal">E-nose</div></td> <td style="border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-left: none; border-right: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-top: none; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; width: 1.25in;" valign="top" width="120"><div class="MsoNormal">Breath </div></td> <td style="border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-left: none; border-right: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-top: none; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; width: 108.7pt;" valign="top" width="145"><div class="MsoNormal">75%/<i>85%</i></div></td> </tr><tr style="mso-yfti-irow: 11;"> <td rowspan="2" style="border-top: none; border: solid windowtext 1.0pt; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; width: 96.3pt;" valign="top" width="128"><div class="MsoNormal">Bladder</div></td> <td style="border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-left: none; border-right: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-top: none; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; width: 92.7pt;" valign="top" width="124"><div class="MsoNormal">Dog</div></td> <td style="border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-left: none; border-right: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-top: none; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; width: 1.25in;" valign="top" width="120"><div class="MsoNormal">Urine</div></td> <td style="border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-left: none; border-right: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-top: none; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; width: 108.7pt;" valign="top" width="145"><div class="MsoNormal">41% success rate</div></td> </tr><tr style="mso-yfti-irow: 12;"> <td style="border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-left: none; border-right: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-top: none; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; width: 92.7pt;" valign="top" width="124"><div class="MsoNormal">E-nose</div></td> <td style="border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-left: none; border-right: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-top: none; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; width: 1.25in;" valign="top" width="120"><div class="MsoNormal">Urine </div></td> <td style="border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-left: none; border-right: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-top: none; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; width: 108.7pt;" valign="top" width="145"><div class="MsoNormal">100%/<i>100%</i></div></td> </tr><tr style="mso-yfti-irow: 13;"> <td style="border-top: none; border: solid windowtext 1.0pt; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; width: 96.3pt;" valign="top" width="128"><div class="MsoNormal">Colorectal</div></td> <td style="border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-left: none; border-right: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-top: none; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; width: 92.7pt;" valign="top" width="124"><div class="MsoNormal">Dog</div></td> <td style="border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-left: none; border-right: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-top: none; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; width: 1.25in;" valign="top" width="120"><div class="MsoNormal">Breath and feces</div></td> <td style="border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-left: none; border-right: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-top: none; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; width: 108.7pt;" valign="top" width="145"><div class="MsoNormal">Breath: 91%/<i>96%</i></div><div class="MsoNormal">Feces: 97%/<i>99%</i></div></td> </tr><tr style="mso-yfti-irow: 14;"> <td rowspan="2" style="border-top: none; border: solid windowtext 1.0pt; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; width: 96.3pt;" valign="top" width="128"><div class="MsoNormal">Melanoma</div></td> <td style="border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-left: none; border-right: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-top: none; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; width: 92.7pt;" valign="top" width="124"><div class="MsoNormal">Dog </div></td> <td style="border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-left: none; border-right: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-top: none; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; width: 1.25in;" valign="top" width="120"><div class="MsoNormal">Tissue</div></td> <td style="border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-left: none; border-right: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-top: none; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; width: 108.7pt;" valign="top" width="145"><div class="MsoNormal">75-86% success rate</div></td> </tr><tr style="mso-yfti-irow: 15;"> <td style="border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-left: none; border-right: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-top: none; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; width: 92.7pt;" valign="top" width="124"><div class="MsoNormal">E-nose</div></td> <td style="border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-left: none; border-right: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-top: none; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; width: 1.25in;" valign="top" width="120"><div class="MsoNormal">Tissue</div></td> <td style="border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-left: none; border-right: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-top: none; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; width: 108.7pt;" valign="top" width="145"><div class="MsoNormal">70%/<i>90%</i></div></td> </tr><tr style="mso-yfti-irow: 16;"> <td rowspan="3" style="border-top: none; border: solid windowtext 1.0pt; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; width: 96.3pt;" valign="top" width="128"><div class="MsoNormal">Tuberculosis </div></td> <td style="border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-left: none; border-right: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-top: none; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; width: 92.7pt;" valign="top" width="124"><div class="MsoNormal">Rats</div></td> <td style="border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-left: none; border-right: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-top: none; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; width: 1.25in;" valign="top" width="120"><div class="MsoNormal">Sputum</div></td> <td style="border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-left: none; border-right: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-top: none; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; width: 108.7pt;" valign="top" width="145"><div class="MsoNormal">74% accuracy </div></td> </tr><tr style="mso-yfti-irow: 17;"> <td style="border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-left: none; border-right: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-top: none; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; width: 92.7pt;" valign="top" width="124"><div class="MsoNormal">Rats</div></td> <td style="border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-left: none; border-right: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-top: none; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; width: 1.25in;" valign="top" width="120"><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div></td> <td style="border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-left: none; border-right: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-top: none; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; width: 108.7pt;" valign="top" width="145"><div class="MsoNormal">68%/<i>87% </i></div></td> </tr><tr style="mso-yfti-irow: 18; mso-yfti-lastrow: yes;"> <td style="border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-left: none; border-right: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-top: none; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; width: 92.7pt;" valign="top" width="124"><div class="MsoNormal">E-nose</div></td> <td style="border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-left: none; border-right: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-top: none; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; width: 1.25in;" valign="top" width="120"><div class="MsoNormal">Sputum</div></td> <td style="border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-left: none; border-right: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-top: none; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; width: 108.7pt;" valign="top" width="145"><div class="MsoNormal">85% accuracy </div></td> </tr></tbody></table></div><br /><div class="MsoNormal">The tuberculosis study with rats determined that these animals were able to process over 40 times as many sputum samples a day than a lab technician.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Such an ergonomic advantage has not been found in other studies with animals as cancer sniffers, however.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">The review paper noted that dogs have been able to detect certain kinds of intestinal infections.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>E-noses have been used to detect diabetes, liver cirrhosis, asthma alone, asthma and COPD, and COPD alone.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>E-noses can distinguish different stages of COPD.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>This study noted that humans have been able to detect certain diseases with their own noses, though this skill has seldom been the subjected to quantitative study.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Tuberculosis was detected by the ancient Greeks and Chinese by heating the patient’s sputum and smelling the fumes.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>As compared to e-noses, the researchers noted the following concerning dogs:</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">“Dogs … require an average VOC concentration of less than 0.001 part per million. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Enoses on the other hand have a detection threshold of 5 to 0.1 parts per million (ppm), although like animals different types of Enoses have different affinity for different volatiles. In comparison, humans have a detection threshold, on average, ranging from 0 to 80 ppm, again depending on of the type of substance. For example, ammonia cannot be perceived by humans until it reaches 50 ppm. Taken together, many animals smell up to 100 times better than humans and Enoses, and it may well be worth making appropriate use of this superior technology.”</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">Thus, dogs may be able to detect smaller amounts of cancer-produced chemicals than current e-noses.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The researchers suggested that dogs might be particularly useful for colorectal cancer where other methods, where blood work is uncertain and colonoscopies are much more invasive.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>They conclude that “scent detection holds promise for the future and should receive higher priority in terms of research effort and funding.”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal"><b>Chemical Means of Analyzing VOCs</b></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">The VOCs in the breath can also be analyzed by chemical techniques, but since they appear in the breath in such low concentrations, they must be enriched before analysis.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Buszewski et al. (2012a) note that the “most common method of enrichment of VOCs is solid-phase microextraction (SPME) and sorption on solid sorbents followed by thermal desorption (TD),” after which the enriched VOCs can be subsequently analyzed by gas chromatography (GC) or GC-mass spectrometry (GC-MS).<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>There are variations on these techniques and other chemical procedures under development.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">This research team from Poland and Austria described the connections between the dog’s nose and its brain, beginning with the mucus lining of the nasal cavity where molecules are bound to odorant-binding proteins.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The axons of olfactory cells reach the olfactory bulb and converge in structures called glomeruli.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>In the inner layer of the olfactory bulb, mitral cells form glomeruli with axons of olfactory receptor cells and send signals to the olfactory cortex.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Each individual odor produces a specific spatial map of excitation and, through spatial encoding, the brain distinguishes specific odors.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>German shepherds have more than 200 million olfactory cells on an area of about 170 square centimeters, whereas humans have about 5 million cells on about 5 square centimeters of olfactory epithelium.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The proportion of active to inactive genes of the olfactory receptor proteins also enters into the calculation of how much more powerful a dog’s sense of smell is than that of a human.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The team summarizes prior research on canine cancer detection as follows:</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">“The papers published so far demonstrate that dogs, after appropriate training, are able to discriminate breath, urine, feces or tumor-tissue samples of patients with lung, breast, prostate and ovarian cancers from respective samples taken from healthy humans with sensitivity (the true positive) and specificity (the true negativity) exceeding 80%. The canine indications are easily interpretable in terms of calculating the detection sensitivity and specificity, but no information can be obtained on what chemical compounds dogs are responding to or the quantity of those compounds.”</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">They also argue that analysis “of odor samples by GC-MS carried out simultaneously with tests using trained dogs” may detect which VOCs are the markers of cancer that dogs respond to.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The team has, in fact, begun to work on this idea (Buszewski et al. 2012b).</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal"><b>Recent Lung and Ovarian Cancer Studies </b></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">A recent study (Amundsen et al. 2013) using dogs to detect lung cancer in patients who were suspected of having that cancer, but who had not yet undergone bronchoscopy, found that with “99% sensitivity, the dogs were able to distinguish cancer patients from healthy individuals.”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The authors concluded that “the main challenge is to determine whether the test can sufficiently discriminate between patients at risk, patients with benign disease, and patients with malignant disease.”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">Another research group (Horvath et al. 2013) has been studying the ability of dogs to recognize ovarian cancer in the blood of patients with the disease. Their research has indicated that dogs trained to recognize the odor of ovarian cancer did not recognize odors from other gynecological malignancies.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>They argue:</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">“The fact that the dogs could not recognize cancers other than ovarian cancer strongly suggests that different cancers have different characteristic smells, thus enabling both diagnosis and differential diagnosis. Moreover, the characteristic odor of ovarian carcinoma is likely organ-specific.”</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">This conclusion appears at odds with research involving a cancer sniffing dog in Japan discussed in a <a href="http://doglawreporter.blogspot.com/2011/03/black-lab-detects-12-types-of-cancer.html" target="_blank">blog here several years ago<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"></span></a>.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>In a paper just published in <i>BMC Cancer</i>, this team sought to analyze how surgery and chemotherapy affected the ability of dogs to detect ovarian cancer in the blood of patients.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>They found that dogs were almost flawless when it came to recognizing patients with full-blown ovarian cancer, but also made very few mistakes when asked to detect samples of patients that had received five or six chemotherapy treatments and who had significantly lower cancer antigen levels.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>They found that one dog, named Hanna, “was repeatedly able to identify with certainty a piece of fatty abdominal wall containing about 20 microscopically-verified ovarian cancer cells. It is impressive how this very low limit of detection allows dogs to signal probable future recurrences that would not be diagnosed by other methods for another 2–3 years. This is the most important result of the present study.”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>They conclude that:</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">“Detection of odor in the blood, currently only possible with trained dogs, can allow for early and long-term prediction of survival. An early diagnosis of primary or recurrent disease may also significantly improve the patient’s survival.”</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal"><b>Conclusion</b></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">The recent research and analysis indicates that e-noses may become a valid methodology for detecting some cancers, where samples can be sufficiently large.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It is difficult to imagine dogs wandering the corridors of hospitals smelling the rear ends of patients even if this were proven to be a useful diagnostic tool, so clinical deployment would likely involve the creation of separate testing facilities.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Samples would have to be carried to the such facilities, and specialized dog handlers and technicians would have to be employed.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>This might be practical for a large centralized medical provider treating a great number of patients, or for a specialized facility serving an array of hospitals and medical centers in a large, perhaps multistate area.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> Still, this might for a time remain cheaper than buying electronic noses or developing laboratories with sophisticated extraction equipment. </span>Almost all papers published in this area emphasize the need for further research along all these lines, but the number of scientists focusing on these approaches is increasing, and we can expect advances to continue.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><br /><br /><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">Thanks to Tadeusz Jezierski for directing me to some of the research discussed here. Thanks to Kingsbury Parker, particularly for noting that "the dog's ability to detect .001 ppm is truly amazing. Since I have done similar quantitative analysis in the lab at the accuracy of 1 ppm I know what sort of effort is required." Thanks to L.E. Papet for additional sources and, as he often does, restraining my more fanciful arguments. Thanks to Richard Hawkins, also as usual, for catching mistakes. </span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal"><i>Sources</i>: </div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />Altomore, D.F., Di Lena, M., Porcelli, F., Trizio, L., Travaglio, E., Tutino, M. Dragonieri, S., Memeo, V., and d Gennaro, G. (2013). Exhaled Volatile Organic Compounds Identify Patients with Colorectal Cancer. <a href="http://www.bjs.co.uk/details/article/3803881/Exhaled-volatile-organic-compounds-identify-patients-with-colorectal-cancer.html" target="_blank"><i>British Journal of Surgery</i>, 100(1)</a>, 144-150. </div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />Amundsen, T., Sundstrom, S., Buvik, T., Gederaas, O.A., and Haaverrstad, R. (2013). Can Dogs Smell Lung Cancer? First Study Using Exhaled Breath and Urine Screening in Unselected Patients with Suspected Lung Cancer.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><i>Acta Oncologica</i> (<a href="http://informahealthcare.com/doi/abs/10.3109/0284186X.2013.819996?prevSearch=allfield%253A%2528amundsen%2529&searchHistoryKey=" target="_blank">posted online ahead of publication August 19, 2013</a>)<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"></span>.</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">Bijland, L.R., Bomers, M.K., and Smulders, Y.M. (July/August 2013). Smelling the Diagnosis: A Review on the Use of Scent in Diagnosing Disease.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><a href="http://www.njmonline.nl/getpdf.php?t=a&id=10000982" target="_blank">The Netherlands Journal of Medicine, 71(6), 300-307</a>.</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">Buszewski, B., Rudnicka, J., Ligor, T., Walczak, M., Jezierski, T., and Amann, A. (2012a). Analytical and Unconvential Methods of Cancer Detection Using Odor.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><a href="http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0165993612001628" target="_blank">Trends in Analytical Chemistry, 38, 1-12</a>. </div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">Buszewski, B., Ligor, T., Jezierski, T., Wenda-Piesik, A., Walczak, M., and Rudnicka, J. (2012b).<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Identification of Volatile Lung Cancer Markers by Gas Chromatography-Mass Spectrometry: Comparison with Discrimination by Canines.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><a href="http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00216-012-6102-8" target="_blank">Analytical and Bioanalytical Chemistry, 404(1),141-146</a><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"></span>.</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">Horvath, G., Andersson, H., and Nemes, S.(2013) Cancer Odor in the Blood of Ovarian Cancer Patients: A Retrospective Study of Detection by Dogs During Treatment, 3 and 6 Months Afterward. <a href="http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2407/13/396" target="_blank"><i>BMC Cancer, 13</i>, 396</a>.</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">Leja, M., Liu, H., and Haick, H. (2013). Breath Testing: The Future for Digestive Cancer Detection.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><a href="http://www.expert-reviews.com/doi/pdf/10.1586/17474124.2013.811033" target="_blank">Expert Review of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, 7(5), 389-391</a><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"></span>.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div>Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12665938105899033120noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2718580891048037671.post-83341484441453948362013-09-27T03:34:00.000-07:002014-02-22T13:30:29.543-08:00Cocaine on Currency: The Innocent Contamination Defense and Recent Forensics ResearchAn influential 2005 case of the Seventh Circuit, <i>U.S. v. $30,670</i>, 403 F.3d 448 (8th Cir. 2005), determined that a drug dog’s alert to currency could help establish a connection between the currency and illicit drug activity based on the scientific conclusion that the substance that dogs were detecting on the currency was methyl benzoate, a byproduct of cocaine undergoing hydrolysis due to moisture, and that methyl benzoate is only detectible for a short time after the currency contacts cocaine. Thus, innocently contaminated currency should not trigger a dog’s alert unless the innocent holder received the currency shortly after it was in contact with cocaine. Since this was generally a factual issue, a defendant who had held the cash for more than a few days was in trouble. (For a discussion of the history of currency sniffs, see <i>Police and Military Dogs</i>, Chapter 15, 207-214.)<br /><br />Now the Seventh Circuit has issued a decision, which may not be the last one in a case that has been going on for 11 years, allowing for the possibility that the science that it previously accepted as definitive might actually be undermined by other research. <i> U.S. v. Funds in the amount of $100,120</i>, No. 11-3706 (7th Cir. 2013)<br /><br /><b>Briefcase at Chicago Train Station </b><br /><br />On December 4, 2002, Vincent Fallon purchased a one-way ticket for a train scheduled to travel from Chicago to Seattle on December 6. Drug Enforcement Administration agents see one-way tickets as a possible indication that a passenger is a drug courier. Two agents approached Fallon after he boarded the train and began to question him. Fallon, according to one agent, was sweating and trembling, but denied that he was carrying weapons, drugs, or more than $10,000 in currency. Fallon allowed agents to search his duffle bag but declined to permit them to open his briefcase, which was locked. Fallon claimed to not have a key to open the briefcase, but admitted that it contained about $50,000, which he said was to purchase a house in Seattle. Agent Eric Romano said he was going to hold the briefcase for further investigation and directed Fallon to come with him off the train. <br /><br />At the Amtrak police office, Romano called the Chicago Police Department and requested a drug-detection dog. In Fallon’s presence, Romano used a pocketknife to pry open the briefcase, and saw the bundles of currency. Fallon now said that the currency actually belonged to a third person with whom Fallon said he was going to invest in glass blowing and glass art. <br /><br />Richard King, a canine officer with the Chicago Police Department arrived, and the DEA agents present told him they suspected the currency of being “narcotics transaction money.” Officer King was thus being advised that the drugs would quite likely result in an alert by his dog, precisely the situation that resulted in so many false alerts in the <a href="http://www.nc-dwi-defense.com/links/documents/Explosiveanddrugsniffingdogs.pdf" target="_blank">2011 Davis study</a>. Romano placed the briefcase in the roll-call room of the Amtrak police office, after which Officer King brought his drug detection dog, Deny, into the room and ordered him to search for drugs. Not surprisingly, Deny alerted to the briefcase and the DEA agents confiscated it. Deny had previously conducted drug sniffs in the roll-call room, though no illegal drugs or suspected currency had been in that room the day of this sniff. <br /><br /><b>Procedural History </b><br /><br />The government initiated a civil forfeiture proceeding against the funds, and Fallon and another man, Nicholas Marrocco, filed a joint claim. Marrocco was the actual owner of the funds. Marrocco was not charged with any crimes and argued that the funds were the fruit of an illegal search and should be suppressed. The district court granted Marrocco’s motion, holding that the agents had had reasonable suspicion to hold the briefcase temporarily but lacked probable cause to open it prior to Deny’s alert. In 2009, the Seventh Circuit reversed, based on the inevitable discovery doctrine. <i>U.S. v. Marrocco</i>, 578 F.3d 627 (7th Cir. 2009). <br /><br />On remand, the government filed a motion for summary judgment and Marrocco filed a motion to exclude any evidence concerning Deny’s alert to the briefcase. Marocco also requested a hearing to challenge evidence offered by the government purporting to establish that drug-dog alerts to currency demonstrate that the currency has recently been in contact with illegal drugs. The motion for a hearing was denied, and the government withdrew its motion for summary judgment but then filed another, to which Marrocco responded by arguing that drug-dog alerts to currency are generally unreliable, Deny’s training was inadequate, and the sniff was conducted in an unsound manner. Marrocco produced expert affidavits, which the government moved to strike. The district court denied the motion to strike but said that the government could challenge the expert evidence. The district court denied the government’s motion for summary judgment. <br /><br />The government filed a third motion for summary judgment, arguing that the evidence established that the funds were either the proceeds of an illegal drug transaction or were intended to facilitate such a transaction, and listed four reasons that this was the case.<br /><ol><li>Fallon fit a drug courier profile, apparently because he bought a one-way ticket and was nervous.</li><li>Marrocco’s tax returns, W-2s, and deposition testimony revealed that his expenses exceeded his income for the previous four years, and that thus his legitimate sources of income were insufficient to explain the funds. It was not considered that many people have savings, and many borrow cash from relatives and friends. </li><li>Records and affidavit testimony from King regarding Deny’s training, certification, and past field performance proved that Deny was a reliable drug dog. </li><li>The methodology used in the drug sniff was sound.</li></ol>In response, Marrocco argued that there were genuine issues of material fact regarding whether Marrocco had a legitimate source for the funds and the significance of Deny’s alert. The district court, however, granted the motion for summary judgment and Marrocco appealed. <br /><br /><b>Seventh Circuit Analysis </b><br /><br />On the second appeal in the matter, the Seventh Circuit said that the government bore, under 18 U.S.C. 983(c)(1), a burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that the funds were either the proceeds of an illegal drug transaction or were intended to facilitate such a transaction. Under 18 U.S.C. 983(c)(3), the government had to established a substantial connection between the property to be forfeited and the criminal offense. <br /><br />Marrocco argued again that there were genuine issues of material fact as to whether he had legitimately acquired the funds and whether Deny’s alert demonstrated that the currency had recently been in contact with illegal drugs. As to the first issue, the circuit court determined that the district court erred in finding as a matter of law that Marrocco could not have acquired the funds legally. <br /><br />The Seventh Circuit then considered Marrocco’s argument that Deny’s alert did not establish that the funds had been in contact with illegal drugs because drug dog alerts to currency are generally unreliable, Deny’s training was inadequate, and the sniff was unsound. <br /><br /><b>Currency Contamination</b><br /><br />Marrocco argued that significant amounts of U.S. currency are innocently contaminated with trace quantities of drugs, usually cocaine (chemically, benzoyl-methyl-ecgonine). The Seventh Circuit had accepted this argument in <i>U.S. v $506,231 in U.S. Currency</i>, 125 F.3d 442 (7th Cir. 1997), but had changed its position in 2005 in <i>U.S. v. $30,670</i>, relying largely on the research of Dr. Kenneth Furton. Dr. Furton had determined that, in the words of the current case, “drug dogs do not sniff cocaine per se, but rather methyl benzoate, which dissipates quickly.” The circuit court had thus ruled that drug dog alerts to currency are probative of illegal drug activity. <br /><br />Marrocco offered the testimony of Dr. Sanford A. Angelos, a forensic chemist, who, in an affidavit, challenged the conclusions of Dr. Furton. Dr. Angelos (who <a href="http://www.legacy.com/obituaries/chicagotribune/obituary.aspx?pid=155006116#sthash.mZLGsTET.dpbs" target="_blank">died in 2011</a>), cited a paper by Paul Waggoner, Canine Olfactory Sensitivity to Cocaine Hydrochloride and Methyl Benzoate, <i>SPIE, 2937</i>, 216-226, which found that drug dogs can alert to illicit cocaine samples with concentrations of methyl benzoate below their detection thresholds. Dr. Angelos also stated, according to the circuit court, “that, so long as cocaine is present on the currency, the cocaine will continue to generate methyl benzoate and thereby replenish the methyl benzoate lost to evaporation.” Dr. Angelos argued that cocaine residue can become trapped in currency and that the amounts of cocaine residue on currency assumed by Dr. Furton’s study might be incorrect. According to the court: <br /><br />“The 1997 Furton study relied upon a study finding that circulated Canadian currency contained no more than 10 nanograms of cocaine. See J.C. Hudson, Analysis of Currency for Cocaine Contamination, 22 Can. Soc. Forensic Sci. J. 203–18 (1989). However, Angelos avers that other studies have found that significant amounts of circulated United States currency contain from 1 microgram (100 times as much cocaine as the Hudson study found) to over 1000 micrograms (100,000 times as much cocaine as the Hudson study found).”<br /><br />Dr. Angelos noted that another of Dr. Furton’s studies dating from 1999 had posited a lower threshold at which dogs could detect methyl benzoate than had been stated in the 1997 research on which the Seventh Circuit had relied in <i>U.S. v. $30,670</i> (1 to 10 micrograms in the later research, as against at least 10 micrograms in the earlier research). The circuit court noted that one study cited by Dr. Angelos might actually contradict his arguments:<br /><br />“One of the studies upon which Angelos relies indicates that the amount of methyl benzoate produced will decrease over time. See Lindy E. Dejarme, et al., Formation of methyl benzoate from cocaine hydrochloride under different temperatures and humidities, 2937 Proceedings of SPIE 19, 21 (February 1997). Although we lack the advantage of expert testimony explaining this part of the study, it appears that the study found that ‘pure’ cocaine only continues to produce methyl benzoate for about 2880 minutes (that is, 48 hours) depending on the temperature and humidity conditions. If so, it is difficult to see how the Funds, which Marrocco claims to have saved from years earlier, could still be producing methyl benzoate based on cocaine that allegedly tainted the Funds before Marrocco acquired them. Further, this seems to conflict with Angelos's claim that cocaine remaining on currency for extended periods of time ‘will slowly break down and release methyl benzoate.’ Regardless, the proper interpretation of this study and the import of its findings can best be developed through expert testimony—perhaps at a <i>Daubert</i> hearing.”<br /><br />The court did not discuss other possible sources of methyl benzoate that could have contaminated the currency Fallon was carrying, but this might be appropriate to consider in a <i>Daubert</i> hearing. This substance is used in many products including solvents, dye carriers, flavorings, and cosmetics, and can come from <a href="http://pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/summary/summary.cgi?cid=7150" target="_blank">numerous sources</a>. If Fallon had stored certain items, such as lip balm, some sunscreen and hand creams, or enough of over 2,000 other substances in the briefcase with the cash, a possible source of transfer could be indicated. <br /><br />As to whether the Deny’s alert was probative of a substantial connection between the currency and illegal drug activity, the circuit court said that a genuine issue of material fact existed. <br /><br /><b>Currency No Long Available for Testing </b><br /><br />The court noted that the funds were no longer available for testing because “[p]resumably the government deposited the Funds into a bank account.” The court noted that “Deny’s alert would be unnecessary if the government had used laboratory testing to determine whether the Funds contained amounts of cocaine in excess of the amounts reported in general-circulation currency. By failing to perform such testing (and failing to preserve the Funds until the conclusion of this proceeding), the government eliminated laboratory testing as a source of evidence.” Recent research, which will be mentioned below, may add to the significance of the failure to retain the actual currency for forensic purposes. <br /><br /><b>Deny’s Training and Performance </b><br /><br />Officer King stated that Deny had received 500 hours of pre-certification training and was certified by the Chicago Police Department Training Division as a Police Utility Dog in July 1998. Most of Deny’s alerts in training were to actual drugs, not tainted currency. Dr. Lawrence J. Myers, a defense expert, “avers that there is no scientific evidence demonstrating that a drug dog’s ability to detect cocaine translates into the ability to detect cocaine residue on currency.”<br /><br />Another defense expert, a dog trainer and behavior consultant, David Kroyer, according to the court: <br /><br />“… states that the government's evidence regarding Deny's training indicates that Deny was not trained to distinguish between the odor of illicit cocaine and odors such as baking soda, vitamin B-12, and other agents used in creating or "cutting" the cocaine. Consequently, according to Kroyer, Deny's training likely (if mistakenly) instilled in him the tendency to alert not only to the odor of cocaine but also to odors of agents which are used in creating illegal cocaine (but which are not necessarily connected to illegal drugs).”<br /><br />Dr. Myers and Kroyer stated that “it is industry standard to ‘proof’ a drug dog off of uncontaminated currency—that is, to ensure that the drug dog does not alert to uncontaminated currency.” Kroyer interpreted Deny’s records as indicating that the dog had once alerted to uncontaminated currency. These two witnesses said that it was industry standard to use an outside agency to certify a dog, but that Deny was only certified by the Chicago Police Department Training Division. Dr. Myers emphasized:<br /><br />“[T]here was no evidence that Deny's training was performed under double-blind testing conditions. Dr. Myers explains that failing to use blind testing can result in ‘cueing’—that is, unconsciously signaling the drug dog to alert or not alert based on the handler's knowledge that the target of the sniff contains or does not contain drugs.”<br /><br />The district court had held as a matter of law that Deny’s training and field performance established by a preponderance of the evidence that he was a reliable drug dog. That court had relied on <i>U.S. v. Limares</i>, 269 F.3d 794 (7th Cir. 2001), which had focused on the field statistics of the dog in question (<i>Police and Military Dogs</i>, 141, n. 38, 166, n. 6). The district court had determined that the evidence concerning deficiencies in Deny’s training was irrelevant because it suggested “that proof of Deny’s reliability requires something more than evidence of his performance in the field.” The Seventh Circuit, however, said that <i>Limares</i> was procedurally very different from the case at hand because <i>Limares</i> concerned whether there was sufficient evidence to issue a warrant based on probable cause in an <i>ex parte</i> proceeding, not on whether a dog is reliable in a civil forfeiture proceeding (which involves a higher burden of proof). <br /><br /><i><b>Florida v. Harris </b></i><br /><br />This brought the Seventh Circuit to the point where it had to take the Supreme Court’s decision in <i>Florida v. Harris</i> into account. That decision had determined that courts should not treat “a dog’s field performance as the gold standard of evidence.” Instead, “evidence of a dog’s satisfactory performance in a certification or training program” is more probative. The circuit court said that the “Supreme Court specifically envisioned attacks on the drug dog’s training.” The court also stated that “[i]f Deny did alert to untainted currency during one of the three times he was tested, then that fact ... could cause a trier of fact to doubt Deny’s reliability.”<br /><br />“Similarly, Kroyer avers that a drug dog trained on illicit street cocaine rather than pure pseudo-cocaine must be proofed off of the odors of the agents used in creating or ‘cutting’ cocaine (for example, baking soda or vitamin B-12) to ensure that the dog can distinguish cocaine from these other odors. King states that Deny was trained with currency tainted by illegal drugs. And the training log indicates that Deny was not proofed off of the odors of the agents commonly used in ‘cutting’ cocaine (but which are common household products) because the log contains all of Deny's pre-certification training searches and none of the entries involve testing Deny against any of the agents used in ‘cutting’ the cocaine. Thus, Kroyer's averments on this issue provide an additional reason to think that Deny's training was inadequate.”<br /><br />The circuit court concluded that the fact Deny was certified in-house by the Chicago Police Department might not be sufficient by itself to dispute reliability, it had some significance when combined with the other reliability issues raised. <br /><br /><b>Cueing and False Alerts </b><br /><br />Dr. Angelos, in his affidavit, stated that Deny may have been cued or the briefcase may have become contaminated at the train station. The circuit court said that Marrocco had produced no evidence that the roll-call room was contaminated with enough cocaine to trigger a drug-dog alert. The court cited <i>McCoy v. Harrison</i>, 341 F.3d 600 (7th Cir. 2003), as well as <i>U.S. v. $30,670</i>, as establishing that the mere possibility of cross-contamination does not deprive a dog’s alert of probative weight. The circuit court noted conflicting evidence with regard to where the briefcase was during the sniff in the roll-call room, but said that this issue “can be explored more thoroughly on remand,” presumably in the <i>Daubert</i> hearing already suggested as appropriate for the district court to hold. <br /><br /><b>Recent Forensics Research </b><br /><br />Four scientists at the University of Central Oklahoma and Oklahoma State University quantified cocaine contamination on bills of different denominations using gas chromatography/mass spectrometry or liquid chromatography/mass spectrometry. They looked at bills from three sources:<br /><ul><li>questioned bills in criminal cases</li><li>control bills</li><li>uncirculated bills received directly from the Bureau of Engraving and Printing (BEP).</li></ul>Uncirculated bills received from BEP produced readings lower than the administrative limit of detection. Approximately 97% of bills in general circulation in the U.S. “demonstrated quantifiable levels of cocaine residue,” probably due to mechanical currency counters. Bills were obtained from 66 cities in 43 states and the District of Columbia. The national average was determined to be 2.34 ± 0.08 nanograms (ng) per bill. Distribution across denominations was “reasonably uniform,” which the researchers found consistent with currency counters being a mechanism of spreading cocaine residue. <br /><br />The researchers noted that it “is unlikely that members of the illicit drug trade have actually physically handled the number of bills that are currently circulating with cocaine contamination.” One means of contamination comes from the use of mechanical currency counters employed in retail and financial institutions which have a “homogenizing” effect on the trace contaminants in the money supply. This was first noticed in 1993 when uncirculated bills from a teller’s drawer at a bank in West Columbia, Texas, were found to have high contamination levels. After it was determined that the bills had been counted by the bank’s mechanical currency counter, the interior of the counter was swiped, and the swipe generated “a massive cocaine peak” in a plasmagram. The researchers found that “a single exposure to a contaminated currency counter will contaminate the bills to the ambient level.” <br /><br />Variations were detectible between nearby locations. Manhattan had levels more than twice as high as New Hyde Park, New York (0.812 ng/bill vs. 0.334 ng/bill); Miami had levels more than twice as high as Fort Lauderdale (2.83 ng/bill vs. 0.102 ng/bill); El Segundo, California had levels almost 15 times as high as Downey, California (11.5 ng/bill vs. 0.784 ng/bill). Bill specimens coming to the FBI Laboratory’s Chemistry and Toxicology Unit from 1993 to 2001, by comparison, assayed in the area of 80 ng/bill. A bill that shows a sufficiently high degree of contamination may possibly be associated with illicit drug trafficking. <br /><br />This means that in addition to using a drug dog to assess whether cocaine may have been associated with the drug trade, prosecutors will want to assay the level of cocaine on bills before deciding whether to begin a forfeiture proceeding. The chemical technology used in this study will be combined with research on canine forensics in various ways to establish optimal procedures for forfeitures and prosecutions. The chemical research also creates possible defense strategies. If the defense can establish that the bills were obtained recently from a bank, the defense may want to have any currency counter that may have been used tested for cocaine contamination. <br /><br />Thomas H. Jourdan, Allison M. Veitenheimer, Cynthia K. Murray, and Jarrad R. Wagner (2013). The Quantification of Cocaine on U.S. Currency: Survey and Significance of the Levels of Contamination.<i> <a href="http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1556-4029.12097/abstract" target="_blank">Journal of Forensic Sciences, 58(3)</a></i><a href="http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1556-4029.12097/abstract" target="_blank">, 616-624</a>. <br /><br />Another interesting research article that also appeared in the <i>Journal of Forensic Sciences</i> found that residues of amphetamine derivatives, opiates, and benzodiazapines could be detected on Euro banknotes. A Spanish research team found that a “procedure based upon extraction with organic solvent, liquid chromatography separation, and mass spectrometric detection allowed the identification of 21 drugs and metabolites in 120 used Euro banknotes collected in the Canary Islands.” This also will necessarily become an area of further research to determine whether amounts of other drugs detected can indicate anything more about the source of the contamination.<br /><br />Octavio P. Luzardo, Maira Almeida, Manuel Zumbado, and Luis D. Boada (2011). Occurrence of Contamination by Controlled Substances in Euro Banknotes from the Spanish Archipelago of the Canary Islands. <a href="http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1556-4029.2011.01851.x/abstract" target="_blank"> <i>Journal of Forensic Sciences, 56(6)</i>, 1588-1593</a>. <br /><br />Other research <a href="http://www.acs.org/content/acs/en/pressroom/newsreleases/2009/august/new-study-up-to-90-percent-of-us-paper-money-contains-traces-of-cocaine.html" target="_blank">described at a meeting of the American Chemical Society</a> found that contamination levels of banknotes are increasing, so what is considered background will have to be adjusted depending on when a sample is collected. For a summary of numerous studies concerning cocaine concentrations on currency up to 2002, see Charles Mesloh, Mark Henych, and Ross Wolf (2002). Utilization of the Law Enforcement Canine in the Seizure of Paper Currency. <i>Journal of Forensic Identification, 56(6)</i>, 704-724.<br /><br /><b>Conclusion </b><br /><br />The Seventh Circuit is probably correct that attacking a detection dog's reliability after <i>U.S. v. Harris</i> will require looking closely at training and certification, with less emphasis on field performance. In-house certifications of the sort provided by the Chicago Police Department will be suspect, as those providing the certification may have reasons to assure that an adequate number of dogs are in the field. Training that does not assure that a dog can distinguish contaminated currency from uncontaminated currency, and distinguish currency from various items that can produce methyl benzoate residues, will raise significant questions about deploying a dog in situations such as Deny faced at the train station. This also will likely be a significant issue in further proceedings in this case.<br /><br />On the other hand, if a dog's performance in the field can be correlated with specific amounts of drug residue on an item, such as currency, then this is no longer, for purposes of a <i>U.S. v. Harris</i> analysis, identical to the situation where a dog's alert may be to residual odor, minute amounts of a drug, or just a false or cued alert. If the amount of drugs on currency can be measured and compared with the threshold of the dog's capacity to recognize the drug, then surely this becomes the sort of situation where, in the words of Justice Kagan, "the dog's (or handler's) history in the field ... may sometimes be relevant...." This remains true even if the instability of methyl benzoate must be taken into account in analyzing the dog's performance. <br /><br />If the dog alerts, but the cocaine residue on the bills is average for the area in which the currency was found, then the defense has an argument that methyl benzoate may have come from another source than as a byproduct from cocaine. If the dog alerts and the bills have significantly more cocaine than most bills in circulation in the area, then the prosecution has reinforced its case that the currency had a connection to the drug trade. If the dog does not alert, but the currency has high levels of cocaine residue, then the holder of the currency can still be connected to the drug trade if he or she held the currency long enough and other sources of contamination are ruled out.<br /><br />As noted above, testing the currency in <i>$100,120</i> is no longer possible because it was deposited into an account and entered general circulation. Any law enforcement official who does this in the future ought to have his head examined as defense counsel will be quick to point out that this is effectively destroying evidence. A dog’s alert can be reinforced by the chemical analysis, or undermined, but both approaches should be considered in the future.<br /><br />This blog was written by John Ensminger and L.E. Papet.Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12665938105899033120noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2718580891048037671.post-9256516900306275842013-09-09T03:07:00.000-07:002014-02-22T13:30:29.590-08:00Pointing Gestures and False Alerts: Recent Research Suggests How Dogs May Turn into Walking Search Warrants <div class="MsoNormal">Eighteen police dog teams entered a church where there were no drugs, and where residual odors were unlikely, yet 17 of the 18 teams alerted to the presence of target odors, most multiple times.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>In a <a href="http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10071-010-0373-2" target="_blank">paper</a><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"></span><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"></span>that caused a good deal of consternation in the police dog world, three scientists at the University of California at Davis argued that the false alerts arose from the fact that the police dog handlers had been led to believe that there were drugs inside the church.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The handlers had cued their dogs.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The results were not videotaped and the authors of the paper did not state exactly how the dogs had been induced to alert when their training should have prevented this.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Recent research on human pointing gestures and dog responses goes some way towards explaining how this may have happened.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">In order that drug dogs not become walking search warrants—as an Ohio deputy sheriff described his dog in a <a href="http://www.springfieldnewssun.com/news/news/local/champaign-sheriff-adds-drug-dog/nZYbK/" target="_blank">recent newspaper article</a>—it is important that supervisors, handlers, and lawyers understand this research and consider its implications.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal"><b>Detailed Sweeps <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></b></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">Handlers of drug dogs take them into areas where drugs may be present and often want to focus the attention of a dog on a particular place where drugs may be hidden by using a “detailed sweep.”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The dogs are trained to alert to the odor of specific drugs and that behavior involves the dog exhibiting a trained final response, such as sitting and staring, which the dog was initially trained to do in order to receive a reward if a target odor is in fact present.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>A problem arises if the dog anticipates the reward or interprets the handler’s behavior, either by subtle suggestion or overt command, and demonstrates the trained final response regardless of the presence of any target odor.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>(For a general discussion of cueing, see<i> <a href="http://www.animallaw.info/articles/arusensminger_papet2011.htm" target="_blank">Cueing and Probable Cause</a></i>, a periodically updated electronic article on the website of the Animal Legal and Historical Center of the Michigan State University College of Law.) </div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">If the handler uses pointing gestures to direct the dog’s attention to a particular location, which is routinely done in detailed sweeps, the question then becomes whether the dog uses that information solely as a direction to smell in an area, or if the gesture itself is being interpreted in part as a command to alert.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>In the latter event, the dog has been cued, and the alert should not provide probable cause for any subsequent investigation by the police who are present.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>A recent study published in <i>Animal Cognition</i> tells us something about this complex issue, and it is worth the attention of both police dog handlers and lawyers involved in drug cases where dogs were part of the process by which the drugs were found.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal"><b>Dogs React to Pointing Gestures </b></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">A person hides a reward in one of two identical cups.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>A dog enters the room where the food has been hidden and the person points at one of the cups.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Dogs, more often than any other species that has been tested, will go towards the cup which the person is pointing at, more than chimpanzees, our closest living relative, and more than wolves, of which dogs are a subspecies. By six weeks of age, puppies can follow a human pointing gesture even if this means moving away from the human’s hand.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Four scientists at the Max-Planck Institute for Evolutionary Biology in Leipzig, Germany, describe this skill as special and evidence that “selection pressures during domestication may have affected dogs’ ability to use human communication.”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">But do dogs see a human pointing gesture as “an informative communicative act” or as a command?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The four scientists, Linda Scheider, Juliane Kaminski, Josep Call, and Michael Tomasello, in a <a href="http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10071-012-0577-8" target="_blank">paper</a> published in the scientific journal, <i>Animal Cognition</i><i><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"></span></i>, designed an experiment to try to answer this question.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>They did not reach a definitive conclusion, but their findings advance the debate and are worth careful consideration.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal"><b>Earlier Study Where Dogs Ignored Their Noses</b></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">In 2003, another team of scientists from the Department of Ethology of Eötvös Lóránd University in Budapest, had found that when confronted with a choice of two bowls, dogs could ignore their own better knowledge and follow the pointing gesture of a human.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>One bowl contained strong-smelling food, potent enough for the dog to be able to smell it from its starting position.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The other bowl was empty. In 79% of cases dogs followed the pointing gesture, suggesting to that team that they were interpreting the pointing as a command. The Hungarian team concluded:</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">“In the case of contradictory cues, dogs prefer to rely on the human communicative signaling (pointing) when they have only olfactory information about the hiding place. Their willingness to do this decreases, however, if they themselves are in the position to obtain visual information about the ‘state of the world’. This means that if a dog sees where the food is placed, it is more reluctant to go in the opposite direction pointed at by the human, even if they had some ever-day experience (with their owner for example) that pointing strongly correlates with the presence of food. This suggests that dogs do not follow human pointing blindly; they seem to have some control over their response to the pointing gesture. However, it is interesting to note that in both studies about half of dogs in these experimental groups seem to fall in either the two following categories. Some dogs mostly ‘believed’ their own eyes, whilst others would go to the empty bowl indicated by the pointing. This also suggests that, possibly due to social experience for some dogs, human pointing becomes one of the most reliable sources of information in the environment.”</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">This suggests that in choosing dogs to train for detection work, an effort should be made to find dogs that “believe their own eyes.”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>This earlier research, it is worth noting, included Ádam Miklósi, perhaps the most important animal behaviorist currently working on canine cognition. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal"><b>Experiment 1</b></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">The team from the Max-Planck Institute devised two experiments.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>In the first, 96, 50 females and 46 males, of various breeds were used.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Dogs were pets and ranged from 1 to 13 years.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>To ensure that dogs could make only one choice, even when a human was not present, cups were placed in a long Plexiglas box with an opening to a compartment at each end.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>There was a distance of 1.2 meters between openings.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>A sliding cover had to be moved to reach the cup inside the compartment, and once moved the other opening was closed, confining the dog to one choice per trial.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">The experimenter, a 27-year-old woman, caught a dog’s attention by clicking her tongue, then baited one of the cups in full view of the dog so that the dog would get used to the idea that there would be food during subsequent trials.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>If the dog chose the correct cup, it was allowed to eat the food.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>If it chose the wrong cup, it got no reward.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Food was hidden on both sides so that the dog would know that there were two possible locations for food.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">Dogs were divided into groups where the experimenter made the pointing gesture but added no ostensive cues, and those for whom the experimenter would say things like “Luna, pass’ mal auf; pass’ auf, Luna!” =, in English: “Luna, pay attention; pay attention, Luna!”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The procedure that followed this action depended on four conditions:<i> </i></div><div class="MsoNormal"><ol><li><i>Authority leaves: dog knowledgeable</i>. After baiting a cup but pointing to the empty cup, the experimenter left the room and the helper let the dog go. The dog had one minute to choose.</li><li><i>Authority leaves: dog ignorant</i>. The experimenter showed the dog a piece of food but the helper closed a curtain so that the dog could not see the experimenter putting the food in one of the cups.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The experimenter pretended to bait the second cup to eliminate the chance that the dog would receive audible information.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The helper opened the curtain and the experimenter pointed.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Again the dog had a minute to choose.</li><li><i>Authority stays: dog knowledgeable</i>.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>This was the same as the first trial, but the experimenter remained in the room after pointing, standing motionless with arms hanging down, head bowed, eyes open.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></li><li><i>Authority stays: dog ignorant</i>.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>This was the same as the second trial except the experimenter remained.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></li></ol></div><div class="MsoNormal">Dogs followed the pointing gesture to the empty cup significantly more if they did not know the real location of the food.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>When they had seen the cup being baited, they generally relied on their visual experience and chose the baited cup, ignoring the pointing gesture.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Whether or not the experimenter—the pointer—remained present when the choice was made had no effect on the dogs.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Nevertheless, if the experimenter pointed, they made the wrong choice significantly more often (about 30% of the time) than in the control condition, where the experimenter did not point.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The use of the additional verbal cues, such as the words of encouragement, did not significantly alter the results.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The fact dogs followed the pointing gesture 30% of the time, when they should have known where the food was, indicated to the researchers that dogs may indeed “interpret pointing to some extent as a command.”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> This, it should be noted, is a reason for using more than a few blank trials in training regimens, as a dog's taking of pointing as a command to alert will not be apparent without a sufficient amount of testing. </span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal"><b>Experiment 2</b></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">In the second experiment of the Max-Planck team, the authority of the human pointing was varied.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>“Authority,” according to the team’s definition, was “a person who is able to control the behavior of dogs in a directive way.”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Thus, sometimes the pointer was an adult, sometimes a child.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>If pointing is a command, adults should be obeyed more often.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>If pointing is informative, it should not matter who is doing it.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">Here, the person pointing could be an adult female or a boy or girl between 4½ and 5½ years old.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Some of the pointing was “honest,” meaning that the experimenter pointed to the cup with food, and sometimes “deceptive,” with the experimenter pointing to the cup without food.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>In honest trials, the dog did not witness the cup being bated.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>In deceptive trials, dogs witnessed the baiting and knew where the food was.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">Forty-six dogs participated in these trials.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The researchers recruited 26 mother-child pairs as experimenters, none of which had major contact with the dogs before.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Of the children, 15 were girls and 11 boys.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>For safety reasons, both children and adults were separated from the dogs by a Plexiglas wall.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Two opaque plastic cups were placed on a wooden board with a distance of 1.3 meters between them.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Most mother-child pairs tested two dogs.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">The researchers found that the dogs “did not differentiate between children’s and adults’ pointing gestures.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The dogs followed the pointing gesture and found the food irrespective of the authority level of the person pointing.”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Nevertheless, when given explicit commands by adults and children to sit, the dogs largely ignored commands by children.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>This suggests, according to the researchers “that dogs do not interpret pointing as a strong command comparable to a command like, e.g., ‘sit’.”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>This means that anyone analyzing whether a narcotics detection dog is being cued by a handler’s pointing gestures should not expect results as automatic as when a dog sits, stands, or lies down on command.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>This also argues that, in establishing testing regimens (whether during training or for certification), there should be a significant number of blank trials in which no target odor is present, as a small number of trials may not reveal a tendency on the part of a dog to alert as a result of pointing gestures.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal"><b>Significance of the Research for Cueing Issues in Criminal Trials </b></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">The Max-Planck research team concludes that “pointing is a gesture that dogs <i>mainly</i> choose to ignore in situations in which they have better knowledge.”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Not all their results indicated that dogs ignore their own senses when a human’s pointing gesture would lead them to an empty cup.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Thus, their results were not as stark in finding that pointing overcomes knowledge as were the 2003 results of Szetei et al., which the current researchers say might be due to the fact that the earlier research involved both olfactory and visual modalities, while their research “exclusively addressed the visual modality. Seeing food and then following another visual stimulus (the gesture) to an alternative location may be more difficult than smelling the food and then following a cue based in another modality, i.e., visual.”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>This observation is important for cueing arguments regarding narcotics detection dogs in that it suggests that pointing may overcome a dog’s reliance on its sense of smell even more than its sense of sight.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Ideally, a narcotics detection dog should not allow a pointing gesture to induce a trained response that is supposed to be solely to a smell—the dog’s alert, yet with a dog that has begun to rely too much on a handler’s pointing gestures, this may be exactly what is happening.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">These behavioral studies used pet dogs that had not been subjected to rigorous scent specific training.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>They had not been required to undergo repetitive activities involving pointing, particularly frequent in the early stages of drug dog training.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Such instructional pointing is used in part as a command for the dog to smell in a certain area, but it is important that it not become a command to exhibit the behavior that indicates the presence of drugs.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>(For a series of still photographs showing how a pointing gesture can be easily turned into a command, see Ensminger and Papet (2011).<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>How to Prevent Cueing Arguments from Getting Canine Evidence Thrown Out in Court.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><a href="http://www.omagdigital.com/display_article.php?id=870008" target="_blank"><i>Deputy and Court Officer</i>, <i>3(2)</i>, 36-39</a>.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Unfortunately, it does not appear that the photographs associated with our article are available online so a library copy will have to be obtained, or it may be available from personnel in some courthouses.)<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">If a drug dog goes where directed, but does not alert without smelling the odor of drugs, then there is no harm. The question then becomes, for an officer trying to assure the reliability of his dog, or a defense counsel trying to attack the alert of a drug dog, whether the dog tends to alert more often when there is a pointing gesture than when there is not, and to have false positives that cannot be so easily explained away by residual odors.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>This requires that there be accurate training records, and that those records involve a significant number of blank trials. (Field records may also be helpful, such as when compiling overall statistics and in comparing teams over significant periods of time.)<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal"><b>Cueing and the U.S. Supreme Court </b></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">The concept of cueing is mentioned in the Supreme Court’s decision in <i>Harris</i>, where Justice Kagan states that “even assuming a dog is generally reliable, circumstances surrounding a particular alert may undermine the case for probable cause—if, say the officer cued the dog (consciously or not), or if the team was working under unfamiliar conditions.”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Among things that defense counsel should look for are indications that pointing has, for a dog, become more than informative, that it has become a command that the dog alert.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">Justice Kagan said that a defendant “must have an opportunity to challenge such evidence of a dog’s reliability [from certification or training programs], whether by cross-examining the testifying officer or by introducing his own fact or expert witnesses.” Professor Andrew Taslitz recently argued—correctly in our opinion—that the Court’s reference to expert testimony can “be read to include expert scientific testimony, and the risk of cuing is indeed one about which the science of dog detection warns.” Such studies as the ones described here are therefore important for counsel to consider in developing defense arguments.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>(Professor Taslitz’s recent article appears in the American Bar Association’s publication, <i>Criminal Justice</i>, and may be downloaded from the <a href="http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/publications/criminal_justice_magazine/summer2013.authcheckdam.pdf" target="_blank">magazine’s website<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"></span><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"></span><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"></span></a>.)</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal"><b>Conclusion </b></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">Fortunately for those who wish to determine a possible propensity for alerting because of a handler’s conscious or unconscious signals, more is now being learned about canine responses to human behavior patterns.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>We will be adding a number of important behavioral studies to our running article on <a href="http://www.animallaw.info/articles/arusensminger_papet2011.htm" target="_blank"><i>Cueing and Probable Cause</i></a> <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"></span>that are significant in this connection.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>We are also writing an analysis of <i>Harris</i> and <i>Jardines</i> where we will discuss the impact the Supreme Court’s decisions are likely to have on police practices and culture. Meanwhile, research such as that discussed here provides important guidance for supervisors concerned with handlers whose dogs’ alerts are too often leading to pointless investigations, and defense counsel who want to question whether a dog was reliable enough to base probable cause on its alert.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal"><i>Sources</i>:</div><ol><li>Lit, L., Schweitzer, J.B., and Oberbauer, A.M. (2011).<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Handler Beliefs Affect Scent Detection Dog Outcomes. <a href="http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10071-010-0373-2" target="_blank"><i>Animal Cognition, 14(3)</i>, 387-394</a>.</li><li>Scheider, L., Kaminski, J., Call, J., and Tomasello, M. (2013). Do Domestic Dogs Interpret Pointing as a Command?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><a href="http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10071-012-0577-8" target="_blank"><i>Animal Cognition, 16(3)</i>, 361-372</a>.</li><li>Szetei, V., Miklósi, A., Topal, J., and Csanyi, V. (2003).<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>When Dogs Seem to Lose Their Nose: An Investigation on the Use of Visual and Olfactory Cues in Communicative Context Between Dog and Owner.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><a href="http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S016815910300114X" target="_blank">Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 83(2), 141-152</a>.</li><li> Taslitz, A.E. (Summer 2013). The Cold Nose Might Actually Know?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Science and Scent Lineups.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><a href="http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/publications/criminal_justice_magazine/summer2013.authcheckdam.pdf" target="_blank"><i>Criminal Justice, 28(2)</i>, 4-8, 55-7</a>.</li></ol> This blog was written by John Ensminger and L.E. Papet. Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12665938105899033120noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2718580891048037671.post-53997358430053834752013-09-05T05:34:00.000-07:002014-02-22T13:30:29.638-08:00Fish & Wildlife Announces Public Hearings on Taking Gray Wolves off the Endangered List <div class="MsoNormal"><b>Additional Hearing Announced</b>. <span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-size: small;">In the October 2, 2013 Federal Register, the Fish and Wildlife Service announced that it will hold an additional public hearing on October 17, 2013, in Denver, Colorado. The hearing will be held at the Paramount Theatre, 1621 Glenarm Place in Denver. A phone number is listed: (303) 405-1245. A call to this number was answered by a machine explaining that I had reached the Kroenke Sports Events and Entertainment Department. <a href="http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2013-10-02/pdf/2013-24104.pdf" target="_blank">78 Fed. Reg. 60813</a> (October 2, 2013) </span></span><br /><br />The U.S. Fish and Wildife Service has extended the comment period on its<a href="http://doglawreporter.blogspot.com/2013/07/fish-wildlife-declares-gray-wolves-no.html" target="_blank"> proposals to remove the gray wolf from the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife</a> but to keep the Mexican wolf listed as endangered.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The comment period was due to end on September 11, but is now being extended to October 28.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Three public hearings have been announced on these proposals: </div><div class="MsoNormal"><ul><li>September 30, 2013, from 6 pm to 8:30 pm in Washington, DC, at the Department of the Interior Auditorium, 1849 C Street, NW.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>For building information call: (202) 208-3100.</li><li>October 2, 2013, from 6 pm to 8:30 pm in Sacramento, California, at the Clarion Inn, Martinique Ball Room, 1401 Arden Way, Sacramento, California 95815.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>For location information call: (916) 922-8041.</li><li>October 4, 2013, from 6 pm to 9 pm in Albuquerque, New Mexico, at the Embassy Suites, Sandia Room, 1000 Woodward Place NE.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>For location information, call (505) 245-7100.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></li></ul></div><div class="MsoNormal">Apparently only the third hearing will consider the remaining protection on the Mexican wolf. The extension of the comment periods and the public hearings were announced in the Federal Register on September 5. </div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 4.85pt;"><ul><li>Proposed Revision to the Nonessential Experimental Population of the Mexican Wolf, <a href="http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2013-09-05/pdf/2013-21665.pdf" target="_blank">78 Fed. Reg. 54613 (September 5, 2013)</a>.</li><li>Removing the Gray Wolf (<i>Canis lupus</i>) From the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Maintaining Protections for the Mexican Wolf (<i>Canis lupus baileyi</i>) by Listing It as Endangered, <a href="http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2013-09-05/pdf/2013-21664.pdf" target="_blank">78 Fed. Reg. 54614 (September 5, 2013)<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"></span></a>.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></li></ul></div><div class="MsoNormal">For anyone who has not commented yet, written comments will be accepted by Fish and Wildlife Service personnel at the meetings. If you want to speak at one of these hearings, the Service states the following:</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />“We are holding the public hearings to provide interested parties an opportunity to present verbal testimony (formal, oral comments) or written comments regarding the June 13, 2013 (78 FR 35664), proposal to remove the gray wolf from the List and maintain protections for the Mexican wolf by listing it as endangered. <b>A public hearing is not, however, an opportunity for dialogue with the Service or its contractors</b>; it is a forum for accepting formal verbal testimony. Anyone wishing to make an oral statement at the public hearings for the record is encouraged to provide a written copy of their statement to us at the hearings. In the event there is a large attendance, the time allotted for oral statements may be limited. Speakers can sign up at the hearings if they desire to make an oral statement. Oral and written statements receive equal consideration. There are no limits on the length of written comments submitted to us.”</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">So don’t expect the Fish and Wildlife officials on hand to do anything more than listen (particularly if it gets heated).<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></div>Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12665938105899033120noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2718580891048037671.post-41121919662419588492013-08-27T03:50:00.000-07:002014-02-22T13:30:29.686-08:00Blanket Bans on Service Animals Disallowed for Psych Wards, Dialysis UnitsIt has been just over 22 years since the Department of Justice first issued regulations detailing the rights of persons with disabilities who use service animals, yet many issues continue to be addressed and resolved by regulators and courts. Some of this is due to the fact that there are now a number of types of service animals, such as<a href="http://doglawreporter.blogspot.com/2010/12/school-district-resists-autism-service.html" target="_blank"> autism service dogs, </a>that did not exist in 1991, and some is due to the fact that there may be conflicting interests concerning the presence of dogs in certain environments<span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; font-size: 11.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">—</span>health care facilities, schools and universities, military bases, various workplace environments<span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; font-size: 11.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">—</span>that must be addressed before the application of the law to a particular situation can be clarified. A recent case from a federal district court in California considered whether and when a hospital could preclude a patient from bringing a mobility impairment dog into a psychiatric ward. One of the documents filed with the court was a memorandum from the Department of Health and Human Services, which has not been widely distributed, but which provides guidelines for dialysis units dealing with patients who have service animals. Both the case and the memo are important developments in service animal law.<br /><br /><b>Patient Denied Access for Mobility Impairment Dog in Psychiatric Ward </b><br /><br />Abigayil Tamara is seventy years old and suffers from a number of physical disabilities, the primary of which is a mobility disability resulting from surgery for a herniated disk in 1994 and a back fusion in 2009.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>She has difficulty walking and maintaining balance and has used a service dog named Inglis since 2010.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Judge Ronald M. Whyte of the federal district court for the Northern District of California elaborates: <br /><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">“Tamara and Inglis trained extensively when they were matched, and they supplement training daily. She walks with him and balances by leaning on the rigid handle of his harness. Inglis also retrieves things, carries items, opens some doors, pushes handicapped and elevator buttons, helps Tamara take off her jacket, and puts her laundry in the laundry basket. Tamara alleges that her independence and mobility have greatly increased since being matched with Inglis and that it is important for her to take Inglis everywhere, not only because he provides important services for her, but also because this is part of the training and bonding requirement of owning a service dog.”</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">Tamara also has bipolar disorder and has been on psychiatric medication for 20 years. The Social Security Administration declared her disabled because of the disorder, and she also has a disabled parking placard and a disabled license.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>She uses the El Camino Hospital in Mountain View, California, for hospital services.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Her psychiatrist and two of her doctors have privileges there, and she had been hospitalized five times before her case was heard by Judge Whyte.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The case involved the hospital’s refusal to allow Tamara to bring Inglis with her during a stay in the hospital’s locked psychiatric ward in 2011. The judge provided additional detail regarding her admission:</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">“In December 2011, the medication changes ordered by her psychiatrist began causing Tamara pain. On December 24, 2011, Tamara went to the emergency room of El Camino with Inglis. El Camino admitted her to rebalance her medication and manage her pain. Although her condition was physical, not psychological, El Camino placed her in the psychiatric ward where her practicing psychiatrist worked, so that he could monitor her symptoms. When the orderly came to escort Tamara to the psychiatric ward, he informed Tamara that Inglis was not allowed in the hospital, allegedly stating that dogs have not been allowed since someone was bitten.”</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">Tamara’s treating psychiatrist wrote an order for Inglis to be admitted with Tamara into the psychiatric ward but this order was ignored until Infection Control, a function that was closed over the Christmas holiday, could consider the issue.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>On December 27, Infection Control told Tamara that Inglis could not be allowed to be with her unless he was tested for MRSA (Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus Aureus). The next day, however, the manager of the psychiatric ward, according to the complaint, told Tamara that she should transfer to another hospital because Inglis would not be allowed into the hospital under any circumstances. </div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">Tamara used a walker during her 13-day stay.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Inglis was not allowed to enter the hospital during that period.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>She claimed that the walker did not allow her to move as well as Inglis did, and she had difficulty using the bathroom without him.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>After a time she asked for a portable toilet to use by her bed. She had to wait extended periods for help with small tasks like picking up dropped items.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal"><b>Service Animal Policy of El Camino Hospital</b></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">El Camino Hospital’s policy was to allow service animals in all areas of the hospital except areas (1) with established traffic control and (2) where the hospital restricted their presence on a case-by-case basis to protect the health and safety of patients.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>This policy was changed at some point after Tamara’s stay to allow service animals “in any area of the Hospital that is unrestricted to inpatients, outpatients or visitors such as lobbies, cafeterias and patient rooms provided that the service animal does not pose a Direct Threat to the health and safety of others and would not require a fundamental alteration in the Hospital's policies and procedures.”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Apparently it was determined under this policy that service animals would not be admitted to certain “restricted access areas,” which include Behavioral Health Units (psychiatric wards). <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Thus, if Tamara needs to be admitted again, she will still not be able to bring Inglis with her.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal"><b>Tamara Seeks Preliminary Injunction </b></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">Tamara filed suit in federal court seeking a preliminary injunction to require El Camino Hospital to admit service dogs unless the hospital has substantial evidence the dog is a direct threat to the health and safety of others that cannot be mitigated by reasonable modifications of policies, practices, or procedures.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">To receive a preliminary injunction, Judge Whyte (citing <i>Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc.</i>, 555 U.S. 7 (2008)) said that Tamara had to establish four things:</div><ol><li>She is likely to succeed on the merits.</li><li>She is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief.</li><li>The balance of equities tips in her favor.</li><li>The injunction is in the public interest. </li></ol><div class="MsoNormal"></div><div class="MsoNormal">The judge considered each item in turn, but spent most of his attention on the first item.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal"><b>Likelihood of Success on Merits</b></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">To prevail on a discrimination claim under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), Tamara would have to show:</div><ol><li>She is disabled under the ADA.</li><li>The hospital is a private entity that owns, leases, or operates a place of public accommodation.</li><li>She was denied public accommodations by the defendant because of her disability.</li></ol><div class="MsoNormal"></div><div class="MsoNormal">Under 42 U.S.C. 12102, a person with “a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major activities” has a disability for purposes of the ADA.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>That this was true of Tamara was not disputed by the hospital.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Hospitals are listed among places of public accommodation under 42 U.S.C. 12181(7)(F). <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>A failure to make reasonable modifications in policies, practices, or procedures is a form of discrimination under 42 U.S.C. 12182(b)(2)(A)(ii), though this will not be the case if the modifications involved would fundamentally alter the nature of the facility or service provided. Regulations (28 CFR 36.208) elaborate that a public accommodation may deny services to a disabled individual if “that individual poses a direct threat to the health or safety of others.”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>To determine this, according to that regulation:</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">“[A] public accommodation must make an individualized assessment, based on reasonable judgment that relies on current medical knowledge or on the best available objective evidence, to ascertain: The nature, duration, and severity of the risk; the probability that the potential injury will actually occur; and whether reasonable modifications of policies, practices, or procedures or the provision of auxiliary aids or services will mitigate the risk.”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">An appendix to the regulations states further that “a healthcare facility must also permit a person with a disability to be accompanied by a service animal in all areas of the facility in which that person would otherwise be allowed.”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Judge Whyte states that blanket policies that service animals fundamentally alter the nature of a service “are rarely appropriate.”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Whether a service animal fundamentally alters the nature of a service is, he notes (referring to a case involving an order to the PGA to allow a professional golfer with a mobility impairment to use a golf cart), an “intensely fact-based inquiry.”</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">The court cites the Centers for Disease Control’s <a href="http://www.cdc.gov/hicpac/pdf/guidelines/eic_in_hcf_03.pdf" target="_blank"><i>Guidelines for Environmental Infection Control in Health-Care Facilities</i></a>, which includes three pages of guidance regarding service animals.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The CDC notes that service animals are appropriately excluded from operating rooms and special care areas which are designated as having restricted access to the general public.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal"><b>1988 Memorandum of the Department of Justice </b></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">El Camino Hospital did find support for its policy of excluding service animals from psychiatric wards in a 1993 letter from the Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice to Senator John C. Danforth of Missouri, which attached a 1988 memorandum of the Department of Justice that included the following language:</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">“A medical justification showing that the presence or use of a dog guide would pose a significant health risk in certain parts of the hospital can serve as the basis for the exclusion of dog guides, but only from the hospital areas directly involved. such areas might include operating room suites, burn units, coronary care units, intensive care units, oncology units<b>, psychiatric units</b> and isolation (infectious disease) areas.”</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">Judge Whyte notes, however, that although the letter to Senator Danforth was written in 1993, after the ADA was passed (in 1990), the attached memorandum dated from 1988 and was based on the Rehabilitation Act of 1973.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The judge acknowledge<i>s</i> that “certain principles of the Rehabilitation Act live on in the ADA,” but this particular guideline “apparently did not survive the revisions because there is no mention of psychiatric wards in the sections of the Code of Federal Regulations related to service animals or the extensive explanatory appendixes.”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Thus, he finds that the letter and memo were not persuasive.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal"><b>Service Animals in Dialysis Facilities</b></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">Tamara found a similar document, a 2010 memorandum from the Department of Health and Human Services regarding service animals in dialysis facilities.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The memo was signed by three officials in the DHHS General Counsel offices.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>These officials found it “very unlikely” that service animals could be appropriately excluded from a dialysis unit though they noted that “while a patient is receiving dialysis and cannot get up to walk or toilet the animal, the hospital is not required to step in.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It is the patient’s duty to arrange for a handler.”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Interestingly, this memo also referred to, and did not notice any conflict with, the letter to Senator Danforth and the attached 1988 memorandum.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>(I have reproduced the memorandum below in an appendix because a web search did not reveal it as having been posted anywhere.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It is part of the court record, and could be important, particularly for individuals seeking to take service animals to dialysis facilities.) </div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal"><b>Milieu Therapy </b></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">The federal district court summarizes the hospital’s argument as to why a service animal should be excluded from its psychiatric ward as follows:</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">“The El Camino psychiatric ward employs ‘milieu therapy’ which encourages community interaction, and it argues that the presence of an animal ‘may spark a response in [a] patient that is consequential.’ ... El Camino created its service dog policy after a literature search and an extensive approval process.... It argues that the inpatient psychiatric setting is ‘notoriously an area of risk for agitation and stress’ and that the presence of a service animal would fundamentally alter the nature of its service because one of the goals of the wards is to ‘eliminate potential sources of stress and disruption.’ … El Camino's arguments, however, are speculative: patients ‘may be sedated,’ patients ‘often have severe psychosis,’ and ‘it is more likely than not that a number of patients will fixate on the animal.’”</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal"><table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left; margin-right: 1em; text-align: left;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjWsVn16GsdweJdwJ91z0wpSi81W2WmVTVQCyCXWkL4GZAh-ZGw7A1yNmYp2KzFWYzFHHZljk6D15zIgJM7BX4a-BmB3e36qymJo3sQ6FhdrRZL62kCa1isluhcyMVTcuqyFXImc0sxwWY/s1600/EC+psych+ward.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="387" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjWsVn16GsdweJdwJ91z0wpSi81W2WmVTVQCyCXWkL4GZAh-ZGw7A1yNmYp2KzFWYzFHHZljk6D15zIgJM7BX4a-BmB3e36qymJo3sQ6FhdrRZL62kCa1isluhcyMVTcuqyFXImc0sxwWY/s640/EC+psych+ward.jpg" width="640" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">El Camino Hospital Psychiatric Ward</td></tr></tbody></table>Tamara pointed out, however, that the hospital’s occupational therapist sometimes brought her dog to the ward.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>She also noted that if her dog were an annoyance to anyone, it might be possible to solve the problem merely by shutting a door.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The layout of the psychiatric ward was provided in a document filed with the court, which is reproduced here. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">As an aside, I would like to note that one of the hospitals I visit with my therapy dog has a psychiatric ward.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>A staff member used to bring his dog to the ward and leave it with the patients for significant parts of many days.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Staff, patients, and visitors all professed to me that they enjoyed the animal’s presence. I avoided that ward with my therapy dog because most of the other wards had no therapy dog visits aside from me and Chloe.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">The court found that the hospital’s arguments only established that the dog “might affect the ward, but not that it will fundamentally alter its nature. This is in contrast to sterile environments, which would be impossible to maintain in the presence of a service animal.”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The court concluded that the hospital had “not met its burden to show that the presence of service dogs within the psychiatric ward is likely to fundamentally alter the nature of the facility….”</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal"><b>Individualized Assessment </b></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">To show that a direct threat exists, a public accommodation must, under 28 CFR 36.208, make an individualized assessment to ascertain the “nature duration, and severity of the risk; the probability that the potential injury will actually occur; and whether reasonable modifications of policies, practices or procedures or the provision of auxiliary aids or services will mitigate the risk.” There was no such individualized assessment here, only a general hospital policy.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">Such an assessment might result in the exclusion of a service animal, as happened in <i>Roe v. Providence Health System-Oregon</i>, 655 F.Supp.2d 1164 (D.Or. 2009), where a large foul-smelling service animal prone to infections, which the owner refused to bathe, was found to bring a risk of infection.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal"><b>Dangerous Harness </b></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">El Camino Hospital argued that Inglis’s harness posed a risk.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>According to the court:</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">“El Camino argues that having a dog in the psychiatric unit would be unsafe because its harness could be used as a weapon and the dog might dangerously upset some patients, [but] these accusations are all based upon generalized speculation. Some psychiatric wards contain unstable patients who may be upset by a service animal. But, nothing in the answer, opposition, or any of the papers provided by the defendants allege that El Camino made an individualized assessment as to whether this psychiatric ward, at the time of Tamara's admittance, had such unstable patients, or if it did, a fundamental alteration would have been required to address any concerns. Further, while a locked psychiatric ward may pose problems for some individuals to care for the hygienic needs of their service animals, nothing indicates that El Camino assessed whether Tamara would be capable of caring for her dog or if reasonable modifications could allow this. Moreover, while it is possible a service dog's leash or harness could be used as a weapon, nothing indicates that El Camino assessed whether Tamara and Inglis could use a safer type of harness or whether the harness could be safely locked away when not in use.”</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">The court correctly observes that the walker that the hospital gave Inglis could just as easily as the harness be used as a weapon.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal"><b>Inglis’s Training </b></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">Tamara argued that Inglis would not be a risk in the psychiatric ward.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>As described by the court:</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">“[Tamara] asserts that through his training, Inglis has become accustomed to 'loud noises and agitating behavior,” and he has been in situations where there are “loud, unstable people.' ... Inglis is trained to remain calm and obey Tamara, ignoring distractions.... She further asserts that Inglis' harness, given its extensive buckles, would be difficult to remove and use as a weapon. She also provides a layout, from her memory, of the psychiatric ward, asserting that there is a separate locked section for the patients in need of truly intensive care. These patients apparently do not interact with the others or participate in the milieu community treatment, and thus would not interact with Inglis. Tamara further asserts that the Hospital could have considered reasonable accommodations to allow her to care for her dog's hygiene needs: allowing her, with supervision, out of the locked ward to take Inglis into the hospital's outside area, or allowing a third party to take Inglis from Tamara at the door of the ward and do the same. Failure to consider these alternatives was a failure to comply with the ADA's requirement that the public accommodations consider changes in practices or policies that would mitigate any direct threat.” </div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">As indicated on the floorplan reproduced above, it might not be difficult to let Tamara take Inglis out several times a day to the outside area that is next to the psychiatric ward.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal"><b>Irreparable Harm, Balance of Hardships, and Public Interest </b></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">The court concludes that Tamara was likely to succeed on the merits. A future hospitalization seemed likely, which the hospital did not dispute.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>As to the effect of being prevented to bring Inglis with her during a future hospitalization, the court stated:</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">“Every day Tamara is away from Inglis, she is not only deprived of her independence, but she loses time training and bonding with Inglis, resulting in less future independence. To be dependent on others to perform simple physical tasks is both frustrating and painful. El Camino's refusal to admit Inglis into the psychiatric ward, without substantial evidence of a direct threat to health or safety, is an imminent, irreparable harm.”</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">As to the third requirement for getting a preliminary injunction, the court states that “El Camino appears to face only an administrative inconvenience mandated by law,” and that the “balance of hardships clearly favors Tamara.” As to the fourth, the public interest in equality also favored Tamara, particularly since she was not requested a blanket injunction that her dog be admitted, regardless of circumstances, only an individual assessment.</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal"><b>Issues for the Hearing</b></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">There can be reasons for excluding service animals from areas other than just sterility or space.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>A friend of mine, a psychologist, had a patient who wanted to bring an animal to therapy sessions, which he permitted.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>He soon realized, however, that the animal was becoming a way for the patient <i>not</i> to deal with those issues that needed to be addressed for the therapy to advance.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The same might be true of therapy sessions in a hospital, whether individual or group sessions. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>If the presence of a dog retards an individual’s therapy, this is more than an administrative inconvenience for the hospital, and may be a hardship for the patient.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Certainly society has an interest in the patient getting well enough to leave a locked environment. (In a recent case in Georgia, a patient’s suit against his psychiatrist for refusing to let him bring his service dog to therapy sessions failed, though on procedural grounds and without any discussion of the merits.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><a href="http://www.leagle.com/decision/In%20GACO%2020130506103" target="_blank"><i>Mercer v. Munn</i>, A12A0382 (Georgia Ct. of Appeals, May 6, 2013)</a>.) </div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">Tamara’s service animal was a mobility impairment dog.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It is quite likely that she could attend individual psychotherapy sessions with the dog without this impeding the progress of that therapy.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Suppose, however, that the dog was a psychiatric service dog, and a focus on it began to detract from the patient’s progress.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Studies on the effects of dogs on psychological conditions have not always found that they were a force for improvement, as Dr. J.L. Thomas and I observed in our paper for the <a href="http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/15228932.2013.765734?tokenDomain=eprints&tokenAccess=QPz7YX7qDYijdrJABpgq&forwardService=showFullText&doi=10.1080%2F15228932.2013.765734&journalCode=wfpp20#.Uhs5qT-wUfE" target="_blank"><i>Journal of Forensic Psychology Practice</i></a>.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Also, as noted by Winkle, Crow, and Hendrix (discussed in <a href="http://doglawreporter.blogspot.com/2012/08/long-term-psychological-benefits-from.html" target="_blank">a blog a year ago</a>), there is a need for much more research specifically as to the psychological effects on those who use service dogs.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It is therefore arguable that some individuals with service dogs should be able to bring their dogs into psychotherapy sessions, just as they could bring a walker or a wheelchair, but other individuals should not be allowed to do so.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal"><b>Conclusion </b></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">I come with my own biases on this.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Early in my legal career I worked for seven years in an impact litigation unit inside of New Jersey state government, frequently suing mental hospitals in right-to-treatment cases.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>We continually found that hospitals would use terms like “milieu therapy” and "restful rehabilitation" when in fact all they were doing was tranquilizing patients with as many psychotropic medications as the human body could hold, a practice we labeled as “polypharmacy” in countless briefs.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>When that is all a hospital is doing, I am inclined to believe that an effort to exclude service animals is primarily a way of reducing friction with ward staff and janitorial unions.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>That admittedly may not be the case here, but I remain skeptical of institutional resistance when it comes to service animals and innovative therapies.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">In a case on which I was consulted recently, I advised the administrator of a facility to think about the dog as a prosthetic device—a walker, a wheelchair—and make decisions based on that perspective unless a solid argument could be made to distinguish the dog from such a device.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>This is not a simple issue and the California federal court was right to require that the hospital reconsider its policy on service animals carefully and apply that policy to each situation separately.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal"><i>Tamara v. El Camino Hospital</i>, No. C-12-01032-RMW, 2013 WL 3968659 (N.D. Cal. 2013)</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">Thanks to J. Lawrence Thomas and Leigh Anne Novak for comments.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal"><b><i>APPENDIX: 2010 Department of Health and Human Services General Counsel Memorandum concerning dialysis facilities</i>.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></b>(Note: formatting had to be altered to replace indents with quote marks and to insert footnotes into text.)</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal"><b>Date:</b> July 12, 2010</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal"><b>To:</b> Ginger Odie, Manager, Non-Long Term Care Certification & Enforcement Branch·</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal"><b>From:</b> Office of the General Counsel, Region VI, Dallas, Texas</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal"><b>Subject:</b> Required Accommodations for Disabled Individuals' Service Animals in Dialysis Facilities</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal"><b>I. Background</b></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">You asked for our assistance in assessing the accommodations required of health care facilities (specifically, dialysis facilities) for disabled patients' service animals. In response to your request, the Office of the General Counsel has the following interpretations and suggestions.</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal"><b>II. Brief Answer</b></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />Generally, it is difficult to exclude a service animal from a hospital or health care setting because the ADA is construed very broadly and with great deference to disabled individuals. With respect to dialysis units, it is very unlikely that a service animal can be excluded unless it presents an individual threat to health and/or safety. </div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">That said, while the hospital must admit service animals, it is under no obligation to supervise or care for them. For example, while a patient is receiving dialysis and cannot get up to walk or toilet the animal, the hospital is not required to step in. It is the patient's duty to arrange for a handler.</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal"><b>III. Legal Analysis</b></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal"><b>A. In general, a service animal must be permitted in a hospital or health care setting.</b></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">The Americans with Disabilities Act provides protection to disabled individuals seeking access to public facilities. The Act, in its entirety, may be found at 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101-12213. In pertinent part, it states:</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">“No individual shall be discriminated against on the basis of disability in the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations of any place of public accommodation by any person who owns, leases (or leases to), or operates a place of public accommodation. 42 U.S.C. § 12182(a)”</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">The term "disability" encompasses dialysis patients because it includes the limited function of a bodily organ or system. 42 U.S.C. §§ 12102(1)(A), (2)(B). The diminished kidney function of ESRD patients certainly meets this criterion. Moreover, the Act requires the definition of "disability" to be construed generously in order to provide maximum protection. 42 U.S.C. § 12102(4)(A).</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">A hospital, health care provider's officer, or other similar service facility is a "public accommodation" for the purposes of the Act. 42 U.S.C. § 12181(7)(P). It is therefore required to make "reasonable modifications in policies, practices, or procedures" as are necessary to provide disabled individuals with access to services and facilities. 42 U.S.C. § 12182(2)(A)(ii). The Code of Federal Regulations (C.P.R.) clarifies that permitting a disabled individual's use of a service animal is such a reasonable modification. 28. C.F.R. § 36.302(c)(l) (2010) [<i>fn</i>: All citations to the Code of Federal Regulations in this brief refer to the October 1, 2008 revision of the regulations unless indicated otherwise.] A service animal is defined as "any guide dog, signal dog, or other animal individually trained to do work or perform tasks for the benefit of a [disabled] individual." 28 C.F.R § 36.104.</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">As a practical matter, the hospital should be cautious in how it ascertains whether an animal is·a legitimate service animal, rather than.a pet or therapeutic animal. Per ADA informational materials published by the Department of Justice-Civil Rights Division, [<i>fn</i>: 42 U.S.C. § 12206(c)(3) requires federal agencies responsible for implementing and overseeing the Act to make available technical assistance manuals and other educational materials clarifying rights and duties under the Act. Formal publications by federal government agencies are within this category and may be relied upon for guidance. Courts have routinely relied upon such publications and guidance. <i>See e.g., Grill v. Costco Wholesale Corp., </i>312 F. Supp. 2d 1349 (W.D. Wash. 2004) (citing the "DOJ Business Brief' and "DOJ Guidance" and stating that they are owed deference); <i>Thompson v. Dover Downs</i>, Inc., 887 A.2d 458 (Del. Super. Ct. 2005) (taking into account information received from the DOJ's ADA Information Line).] an establishment may ask either what task or function the animal performs or simply whether the animal is a service animal. It may <i>not </i>ask about the nature of the individual's disability, request <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>documentation of the individual's disability, or require certification or ID stating that the animal is a registered service animal. [<i>fn</i>: Within a hospital or healthcare setting, the nature of a patient's disability will likely already be known or apparent. However, it is wise to keep these guidelines in mind if a patient's known disability does not seem to relate to the service animal's function. For example, an individual with ESRD is disabled for the purposes of the Act, but it may appear to hospital personnel that the individual's service animal does not perform a task related to that disability. Hospital staff must be careful in how they ascertain the legitimacy of the service animal because the patient may have another, underlying disability that necessitates the use of the service animal.] It is generally best to accept an individual's oral assurances that an animal is a service animal. <i>See </i>DEPT. OF JUSTICE, COMMONLY ASKED QUESTIONS ABOUT SERVICE ANIMALS IN A PLACE OF BUSINESS (1996), http://www.ada.gov/qasrvc.htm [hereinafter, "Service Animal CAQ"]; DEPT. OF JUSTICE, ADA BUSINESS BRIEF: SERVICE ANIMALS (2002), http://www.ada.gov/svcanimb.htm [hereinafter, "Service Animal Business Brief'].</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal"><b>B. A facility is only required to admit a service animal; "reasonable modifications" do not extend to taking responsibility for the animal.</b></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">The Code of Federal Regulations explicitly provides that "[n]othing in this part requires a public accommodation to supervise or care for a service animal." 28 C.F.R.§ 26.302(c)(2). That is, the facility is not required to walk, feed, or toilet the animal while the patient is indisposed. Likewise, a facility need not provide a special area for the animal to relieve itself. <i>See </i>Service Animal CAQ; Service Animal Business Brief. It is the responsibility of the patient to make arrangements for a handler.</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">If a facility feels that it would be beneficial to exceed the requirements and support the presence of its disabled patients' service animals, it may provide for emergency stewardship of a service animal while a patient is indisposed and unaccompanied by a handler. Some facilities have implemented programs wherein volunteers from the community or from within the hospital take charge of the animal while the patient is being treated. <i>See </i>Susan L. Duncan, et al., <i>A<a href="http://www.petpartners.org/document.doc?id=404" target="_blank">PIC State-of-the-Art Report: The implications of service animals in health care settings</a>, </i>28 AM. J. INFECTION CONTROL 170, 176-77 (2000). However, there are legal implications to taking custody of a service animal and consent and waiver forms should be obtained from the owner. Specific language would be dependent upon the kind of program a facility elects to implement; legal counsel should be obtained on a case-by-case basis to formulate appropriate policies and procedures.</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">The presence of a service animal may raise damage and cleanliness concerns. It should be noted that, while a facility may not charge a disabled individual a maintenance or cleaning fee simply because he/she brings a service animal on the premises, the facility does have the right to bill the animal's owner for any damage it does <i>as long as </i>it is the facility's regular practice to charge non-disabled individuals for the same kind of damage. For example, if a service animal scratches a chair in the dialysis unit, the facility would only be able to bill its owner for the repair/replacement costs if it would bill a non-disabled individual for causing the same damage.</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal"><b>C. In certain, limited instances, a facility may exclude a service animal.</b></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal"><b>i. The "Fundamental Alteration" Provision</b></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">There are a few provisions in the Act which excuse a facility from accommodating a service animal. First, a facility may be excused from modifying its policies to accommodate an animal if it can show clearly that the animal's presence would fundamentally alter the nature of the facility or services it provides. 42 U.S.C. § 12182(b)(2)(A)(ii). For instance, there may be clearly identifiable areas where it would be unreasonable to expect a service animal to be admitted. Operating rooms or other sterile areas where gowns, masks, and gloves are required are good examples; if anti-contamination precautions must be observed by all who enter an area, it would be a fundamental alteration to the nature of the facility to allow an animal to enter. Another instance might be a small area through which personnel must pass in order to exercise their duties where the animal's presence would prevent them from passing. (For example, if a nurse must walk back and forth in a narrow aisle to administer care, a large dog blocking her way might be viewed as a fundamental alteration of the area and the nature of services she is able to provide.) In general though, most areas of a hospital should be open to a service animal. As one article notes, "if persons are allowed to be present without being required to observe special precautions ... it would be difficult to argue that a clean, healthy, well-behaved service animal should be denied entrance." <i>See </i>Duncan et al., <i>supra, </i>at 173. It would appear that a dialysis unit would not fall within the limited class of areas from which a service animal can automatically be excluded.</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">A hospital should invoke the "fundamental alteration" rationale sparingly to deny admission of service animals; the Act is generally construed liberally in favor of disabled individuals. [<i>fn</i>: In fact, the preamble to the relevant C.F.R. section states that "[i]t is intended that the broadest feasible access be provided to service animals in all places of public accommodation, including ... hospitals .... " 28 C.F.R. pt. 36, app. B (citing Education and Labor report at 1 06; Judiciary report at 59) (emphasis added).] Rather than formulating blanket policies, it is wise to make case-by-case determinations based on the environment, circumstances, and service animal. The Ninth Circuit echoed this sentiment in a 2004 opinion, stating that whether an accommodation causes a fundamental alteration is an "intensively fact-based inquiry" and mere speculation of a disturbance or alteration is insufficient; there must be substantial underlying evidence. <i>See Lentini v. California Center for the Arts, Escondido, </i>370 F.3d 837, 844 (9th Cir. 2004) (citing <i>Crowder v. Kitagawa, </i>81 F.3d. 1480, 1486 (9th Cir. 1996). </div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal"><b>ii. The "Safety" Provision</b></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">The regulation at Section 26.301 provides that a public accommodation "may impose legitimate safety requirements that are necessary for safe operation." 28 C.F.R. § 26.301(b). In a hospital setting, "safety" might be a more appropriate basis for excluding a service animal than "fundamental alteration" because jeopardy to health falls within the category of safety risks. However, similar limitations apply to the safety provision as to the fundamental alterations provision; the regulation states that safety assessments "must be based on actual risks and not on mere speculation, stereotypes, or generalizations .... " <i>ld. </i>Generally, hospitals should not assume automatically that an animal will present a threat to hygiene, health, or safety. An Illinois court found that an animal could not be excluded for generalized concerns about health and safety; rather exclusion had to be supported by a qualified medical professional's opinion that the animal presented a threat to the hospital's health and safety that a human being would not. <i>Branson v. West, </i>1999 WL 1129598 (N.D. Ill. 1999), amended memorandum opinion and order at 1999 WL 1186420 (N.D. Ill. 1999).</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">There may be areas of a hospital where an animal necessarily presents a safety risk. [<i>fn</i>: This is parallel to the "fundamental alteration" situation, where admitting a service animal in an operating room would fundamentally alter the sterile nature of the facility. Essentially, this is a second, separate basis for upholding the exclusion.] In a technical assistance letter to U.S. Senator John C. Danforth [<i>fn</i>: Technical Assistance Letter from the U.S. Dept. of Justice to John C. Danforth, U.S. Senator (May 10, 1993).], the Department of Justice expressed the view that is best to tailor safety-based exclusions of service animals to as few areas within the premises as possible. Specifically, </div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">“[A] health care facility, such as a hospital is covered by ... the ADA. []A showing by appropriate medical personnel that the presence or use of a service animal would pose a significant health risk in certain areas of a hospital may serve as a basis for excluding service animals in those areas. In developing a list of areas from which service animals may be excluded, a hospital facility must designate only the exact areas where exclusion is appropriate.”</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">As a whole, it is best to make as few wholesale determinations as possible. Aside from a very narrow class of areas (like operating rooms), there should be very few places from which service animals are automatically excluded. Rather, facilities should try to evaluate safety risks case-by-case, taking into account: (1) the area to be entered; (2) the type of service animal; and (3) the individual animal's characteristics. Courts have held that, under the safety provision, it is reasonable to require an animal has been vaccinated [<i>fn</i>: <i>See Crowder v. Kitagawa, </i>81 F.3d 1480 (9th Cir. 1996).] and to require that an animal not be "dangerous" or "poisonous." [<i>fn</i>: <i>See Assenbergv. Anacortes Housing Authority, </i>2006 WL 1515603 (W.D. Wash. May 25, 2006).] Hospital personnel may also take into account exceptionally strong odors emanating from an animal and whether an animal causes allergic reactions in patients and staff. [<i>fn</i>: <i>See Roe v. Providence Health Systems-Oregon, </i>655 F.Supp.2d. 1164, 1167-68 (D. Or. 2009).] As an Oregon court noted, "[a] hospital is charged with keeping <i>all </i>of its patients safe, providing quality health care to <i>all, </i>and providing a safe workplace for its staff." [<i>fn</i>:<i><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 10.0pt; mso-bidi-language: HE;"> </span>Id. </i>at 1168.] </div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">The Service Animal CAQ also adds that an animal may be excluded if it displays any threatening behavior (i.e.-growling, snapping, biting) towards other patients or personnel. The animal must actually display vicious behavior; it is insufficient to base a "threat to safety" decision upon past experiences or beliefs about the innate tendencies of certain breeds.</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal"><b>iii. The "Direct Threat" Defense</b></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">The Act also provides the so-called "direct threat" affirmative defense, stating that a facility is not required to provide a disabled individual access to its services and facilities if that individual "poses a direct threat to the health or safety of others." 42 U.S.C. § 12182(b )(3 ). "Direct threat means a significant risk to the health or safety of others that cannot be eliminated by a modification of policies, practices, or procedures .... " <i>Id.</i></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">The direct threat defense follows naturally from the fundamental alteration and safety provisions and often supplements those provisions as a basis for service animal exclusion. In <i>Roe v. Providence Health System-Oregon, </i>the court provided the elements necessary for a hospital to establish a direct threat affirmative defense. They are:</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">(1) the animal's presence creates a risk to the health or safety of patients, staff, and/or visitors;</div><div class="MsoNormal">(2) the hospital can prove with clear evidence that the risk is significant; and</div><div class="MsoNormal">(3) the direct threat cannot be eliminated by modifying the hospital's policies, practices, or procedures. [<i>fn</i>: <i>Id.</i>]</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">With respect to the second element, "clear evidence" might include testimony from health professionals as to the risk presented by the animal, visible signs that an animal has a disease or infection, or instances of the animal's vicious conduct.</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">With respect to the third element, it is important that the hospital evaluate whether a reasonable modification could be made to accommodate the animal and eliminate the perceived risk. For example, if another patient's allergic reaction could be avoided simply by shutting the door between his room and the service animal's owner's room, the hospital would need to do so.</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal"><b>D. Conclusion</b></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">In sum, it is very difficult to exclude a service animal from a hospital or health care setting because the ADA is construed very broadly and with great deference to disabled individuals. There are very few areas from which a service animal may be excluded automatically and a case-by-case determination generally needs to be made. With respect to dialysis units, it is very unlikely that a service animal can be excluded unless it presents an individual threat to health and/or safety.</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">Although the hospital must admit service animals, it is under no obligation to supervise or care for the animals. For example, while a patient is receiving dialysis and is unavailable to move about to walk or toilet the animal, the hospital is not required to take stewardship of the animal. It is the responsibility of the patient to arrange for a handler. If a hospital decides to provide disabled patients with the services of a handler, it should seek the assistance of counsel to formulate clear policies and procedures, specific to the structure of the program it elects to implement. Please feel free to contact Julian Treadwell if you have any questions at (214) 767-2919.</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">Sincerely,</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">Mark B. Childress, Acting General Counsel</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">Delores "Dee" Thompson, Chief Counsel</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">Julian V. Treadwell, Assistant Regional Counsel, Department of Health and Human Services</div>Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12665938105899033120noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2718580891048037671.post-51391083591845076602013-08-20T03:13:00.000-07:002014-02-22T13:30:29.735-08:00Conviction Overturned for Excessive Redaction of Training Records and Performance Reviews: Vehicle Sniffs in a Post-Harris-Jardines World<div class="MsoNormal">In an opinion issued early this month, Ninth Circuit Judge Diarmuid F. O’Scannlain said that the case required the court “to explore emerging parameters for the constitutional use of drug-detection dogs.” <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>What is emerging is how courts will be interpreting <a href="http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=16921239878556783842&hl=en&as_sdt=2&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr" target="_blank"><i>Harris</i></a> and <a href="http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=3945591952650905206&hl=en&as_sdt=2&as_vis=1&oi=scholarrl" target="_blank"><i>Jardines</i></a>, the two Supreme Court cases concerning narcotics-detection dogs decided last spring.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The Ninth Circuit clearly wants law enforcement to understand that <i>Harris</i> does not mean that courts will be rubber stamping drug dog reliability by accepting mere assertions of certification and adequate training.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal"><b>Stop at Border Patrol Checkpoint</b></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">On February 28, 2010, Jonathan Thomas approached a Customs and Border Patrol checkpoint in southern Arizona.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>(As a winter resident of Arizona, I can attest that such checkpoints are a way of life whenever one drives anywhere within 50 miles of the Mexican border.)<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Border Patrol Agent Christopher LeBlanc was on duty with his drug-detection dog, Beny-A, who, in addition to drugs, was trained to detect concealed humans.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>LeBlanc and Beny-A were about 15 feet from the inspection area when Thomas’s truck passed them and the dog began to demonstrate what Thomas referred to as “alert behavior.”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>This meant that the “dog’s tail and ears went up, his posture and breathing pattern changed, and he started ‘air-scenting.’” </div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">Thomas was directed to a secondary inspection point where he and his three children exited the truck.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>LeBlanc and Beny-A began a pass of the truck.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>According to the opinion:</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">“The dog was ‘in odor’ throughout, meaning he was very animated and excited. Near the gas tank on the passenger side the dog exhibited more alert behavior. Beny–A is trained to perform what is known in the trade as an 'indication' when he discovers contraband: he ‘rock[s] back into a sit.’</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">“When the team came upon the toolbox, LeBlanc cast his hand low-to-high. In response, Beny–A jumped up and placed his paws on the vehicle and pressed his nose against Thomas's toolbox. LeBlanc testified that the dog then tried to sit, but that he did not allow him to complete that trained indication. Next, LeBlanc returned Beny–A to his kennel, obtained Thomas's keys, and searched the locked toolbox. Inside was a blanket and, underneath, bundles of marijuana weighing about 150 pounds. Thomas was arrested, advised of his Miranda rights, and transported to the Tucson Border Patrol station.”</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">We have discussed the risks associated with using hand motions to bring a dog’s attention to objects that might be sniffed, including pictures of how this can cue a dog.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>See How to Prevent Cueing Arguments from Getting Canine Evidence Thrown Out in Court, <i>Deputy and Court Officer, 3(2)</i>, 36-38 (2011).<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Probable cause would be more clearly established if a dog is allowed to complete the alert.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>There can be reasons for stopping a dog from completing an indication, such as a physical barrier, an ailment in a dog’s leg, etc., but the defense should always carefully examine such claims.<br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">Thomas was indicted for possession of marijuana with intent to distribute (21 U.S.C. 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(C)).<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>A superseding indictment 14 months later added a charge of conspiracy to possess marijuana with intent to distribute (21 U.S.C. 846).<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Thomas moved to have the indictment dismissed on the ground that the Speedy Trial Act 70-day rule (18 U.S.C. 3161(c)(1)) had been violated.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">Thomas also argued for suppression based on the search of the toolbox.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>He claimed that this search violated the Fourth Amendment because the drug dog’s failure to indicate meant probable cause had not been established.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>He also objected to receiving heavily redacted training and performance evaluation records concerning Beny-A and his handler.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The district court judge ruled that the government’s limited disclosures satisfied its discovery obligations and denied the motion to suppress.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>After a two-day trial, Thomas was found guilty of conspiracy and the court sentenced him to 30 months of incarceration.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal"><b>Appeal to the Ninth Circuit</b></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">The circuit court rejected the Speedy Trial Act argument, then proceeded to Thomas’s Fourth Amendment argument.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The court said that this involved three separate assertions:</div><ol><li>Agents invaded a constitutionally protected area by directing the drug dog to jump “up and put his paws and nose on the toolbox in the truck bed, and stay … like that, refusing to move.”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></li><li>The government failed to disclose adequate evidence of the proficiency of Beny-A and his handler to justify the search of the toolbox.</li><li>Beny-A’s failure to indicate by sitting meant that the agents lacked probable cause for the search.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></li></ol><div class="MsoNormal">The government responded that Beny-A’s contact with the truck was not a Fourth Amendment search.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The second argument, however, proved key.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal"><b>Truck Bed and Toolbox as Areas Constitutionally Protected</b></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">The argument concerning constitutionally protected areas is based on <i>U.S. v. Jones</i>, 132 S.Ct. 945, 181 L.Ed.2d 191 (2012), and <i>Florida v. Jardines</i>, 133 S.Ct. 1409, 185 L.Ed.2d 945 (2013).<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><i>Jones</i> held that installation of a GPS-tracking device to the exterior of a car was a search subject to the Fourth Amendment’s requirement of reasonableness.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The Ninth Circuit described <i>Jardines</i> as having “held that the use of ‘a trained police dog to explore the area around the home in hopes of discovering incriminating evidence’ implicated the <i>Jones</i> principle.”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The court was unwilling to issue a specific rule concerning the significance of <i>Jardines </i>to a vehicle situation, saying only:</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">“[I]t is conceivable that by directing the drug dog to touch the truck and toolbox in order to gather sensory information about what was inside, the border patrol agent committed an unconstitutional trespass or physical intrusion.”</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">The court noted that not every constitutional violation leads to the application of an exclusionary rule.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Police, for instance, may reasonably rely on binding precedent<i>.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Davis v. U.S.</i>, 131 S.Ct. 2419, 180 L.Ed.2d 285 (2011).<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The Supreme Court, in <i>Illinois v. Caballes</i>, 543 U.S. 405, had held that “the use of a well-trained narcotics-detection dog” on a motor vehicle did “not rise to the level of a constitutionally cognizable infringement.”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><i>Indianapolis v. Edmond</i>, 531 U.S. 121, had said that an exterior sniff of an automobile is permissible in part because it “does not require entry into the car.”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The Ninth Circuit also referred to Justice O’Connor’s oft-repeated description, in <i>U.S. v. Place</i>, 462 U.S. 696, of the dog sniff as <i>sui generis</i>, and her conclusion that using such a dog to sniff luggage was not “a search requiring probable cause.”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">Because of these prior cases on which the border patrol agents could have relied in performing the sniff and opening of the toolbox, they “acted in accord with then-binding precedent” and, therefore, “the marijuana seized is not subject to exclusion on the basis of an unconstitutional trespass or physical intrusion.” <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>In effect, the Ninth Circuit left the question of whether such a sniff might involve a constitutionally protected area for a case in which the stop occurred after <i>Jardines</i> was handed down. </div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal"><b>Reliability of Drug Dog </b></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">Thomas also challenged Beny-A’s reliability, arguing that it was improper for the government to supply him with only heavily redacted records concerning the training and experience in narcotics detection of the dog and the handler.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The Ninth Circuit summarized the records that were produced:</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">“Such records show that LeBlanc and Beny–A had attended yearly certification programs from the Border Patrol and were up-to-date at the time of the search. Biweekly logs, called green sheets, were also produced. The team's performance during eight-hour-controlled evaluations was scored on a scale of one to six—the higher the score, the worse the performance. At least one record analyzed at the suppression hearing revealed marginal performance in ‘search skills.’ The team received a 3.50. Had it been one-tenth of a point higher it would have been ‘a failing score.’ The redactions obscure comments on nearly every page of the records. As to what is beneath the blacked-out paragraphs, the defendant, district judge, this court, and even the Border Patrol's custodian of records are entirely in the dark.”</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">The court noted that it had dealt with discovery of police canine records ten years earlier.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>In <i>U.S. v. Cedano-Arellano</i>, 332 F.3d 568 (9<sup>th</sup> Cir. 2003), it had held, in response to a discovery request in a motion to suppress, that the government had to supply the defendant with the handler’s log, training records and score sheets, certification records, and training standards and manuals pertaining to the dog.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>This, according to the 2003 decision, was important for the defendant to prepare “effective cross-examination of the dog’s handler.”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Further, under <i>U.S. v. Cortez-Rocha</i>, 394 F.3d 1115 (9<sup>th</sup> Cir. 2005), these disclosures are mandatory if the government seeks to rely on a dog alert as the evidentiary basis for a search.</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">The Ninth Circuit saw the Supreme Court’s decision in <i>Harris</i>, 133 S.Ct. 1050 (2013), as echoing its own perspective in that Justice Kagan stated that a defendant must be afforded the opportunity to challenge “evidence of a dog’s reliability, whether by cross-examining the testifying officer or by introducing his own fact or expert witness.”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The court quoted Justice Kagan’s examples of how a defendant could attack a dog’s reliability:</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">“The defendant, for example, may contest the adequacy of a certification or training program, perhaps asserting that its standards are too lax or its methods faulty. So too, the defendant may examine how the dog (or handler) performed in the assessments made in those settings.”</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">The Ninth Circuit therefore saw these remarks as non-exclusive examples.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Even if there was some sensitivity that justified redacting the records, the Ninth Circuit noted that this could have been dealt with by an in-camera review.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>There may in fact be good reasons for some redaction of records, though mostly field records, such as the need to protect the privacy of individuals involved in an investigation or to keep specific deployment protocols confidential, but these reasons can be described and discussed in chambers.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><br /><br />The government also argued that even if there was a violation of Thomas’s rights, the error was harmless. Because no court had access to the complete records, the Ninth Circuit concluded that it could not be said that the records would not have changed the ultimate determination that the agents had probable cause to support the search. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Therefore, the harmless-error argument failed.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal"><b>Lack of Formal Alert </b></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">Thomas also argued that because Beny-A “never completed his trained indication—the sitting discussed earlier—his behavior was an insufficient basis for searching the toolbox.”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The court accepted the analysis of the Tenth Circuit in <i>U.S. v. Parada</i>, 577 F.3d 1275 (10<sup>th</sup> Cir. 2009), which had held that a dog did not have “to give a final indication before probable cause is established.”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>In that case “rapid deep breathing, body stiffening, and upbreaking from the search pattern” were sufficient.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The Ninth Circuit stated that “[e]vidence from a trained and reliable handler about alert behavior he recognized in his dog can be the basis for probable cause.”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal"><b>Conclusion </b></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">The Ninth Circuit reversed, holding that “the government’s failure to turn over a full complement of dog-history discovery was an error that was not harmless….”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>On remand, the government would have the chance to establish the dog’s reliability by producing an adequate record.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>If the government could establish consent to the search, that would allow reinstating conviction.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>“If not, a new trial without the evidence of the marijuana will be appropriate.”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>We all know that is not going to happen, so the government’s best shot appears to be to turn over all the dog’s records and ask for an in-camera review if some of the material really is sensitive.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">The case is an important extension of <i>Harris</i>, as it says that the government cannot turn over redacted training records in discovery and expect the defense and a trial judge to accept without argument that what it is given must be taken as adequate.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">There have already been at least a dozen cases interpreting various issues left open in <i>Harris</i> and <i>Jardines</i>.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>We will soon be examining the impact of these cases on police and prosecutorial practice in a law review article we are preparing on what Judge O’Scannlain aptly calls the “emerging parameters for the constitutional use of drug-detection dogs.” <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"><br /></span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal"><i>U.S. v. Thomas</i>, No. 11-10451, 2013 WL 4017239 (9<sup>th</sup> Cir. 2013). </div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">This blog was written by John Ensminger and L.E. Papet.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></div>Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12665938105899033120noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2718580891048037671.post-91818838728362474522013-08-12T03:03:00.000-07:002014-02-22T13:30:29.784-08:0089-Year-Old Man Dies from Wounds Inflicted by Police Dog with History of Attacking Bystanders<div class="MsoNormal">A police dog bite case that ultimately resulted in the death of an 89-year-old man who was attacked in his own back yard is a lesson in what can go wrong when a dog is let loose beyond control of its handler. The liability of the police handler is not particularly surprising, but the liability of other officers present is a cautionary tale about how mistakes of a handler can lead to liability for officers who are supporting the handler, or perhaps just do not stop him when they should realize that his actions are putting citizens at risk. It is also a warning to supervisors above police dog units who incorrectly assume that the officers in a unit can be left to train and work as they wish. Finally, cities and other authorities that have doubts about their police dog programs should study this case from a federal district court in the Ninth Circuit, which shows that the liability for a poorly managed canine program can be substantial, and may ultimately have to be passed on to taxpayers if insurance coverage is inadequate or withdrawn after an incident. <br /><br /><b>Robbery of Domino's Pizza </b><br /><br />Officer Loring Cox of the Hayward Police Department and his police dog Nicky responded to an armed robbery of a Domino’s Pizza the night of May 29, 2011.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The victim informed police that the robber was armed with a handgun and headed north after leaving the restaurant.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Officer Cox and Nicky arrived first, followed by Officers Robert Purnell and Michael Miller, and the three officers began to following the dog, which was supposedly trailing a scent from the pizza shop.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>A casting process may have been used for the dog to find the scent, since no articles are mentioned as being available for this purpose, but this aspect of the canine team’s work was not described in any detail.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">Nicky took a right turn off West Winton Avenue and “sprinted down a commercial driveway,” where he stopped at an 8-foot-high concrete wall at the rear of a business complex.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The wall separated the complex from a mobile home park.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Nicky pawed at the wall.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">Officer Cox stood on a wooden pallet to look over the wall and saw the back yards of several mobile homes.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>He decided to lower Nicky into the yard on the other side of the wall.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>According to the court, Cox “chose to send the dog over the wall before cover officers scaled the wall in order to protect the officers’ safety and preserve the integrity of the scent…. Cox did not announce his presence or the deployment of Nicky because the suspect had fled the scene and was thought to possess a handgun.”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">There were inconsistent statements from the officers with regard to what happened next.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Officer Cox said that he lowered Nicky to the ground by his leash, which was 33 feet long, a common length for a tracking lead. Purnell held one end of Nicky’s leash while Cox lowered the dog.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Cox said that Nicky remained lying on the ground until Cox jumped down into the back yard.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>This would have been protocol, but Officer Purnell’s testimony was very different:</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">“Officer Purnell testified that Nicky was searching Mr. Porter's yard unsupervised, and that Cox was still standing on the wooden pallet, on the side of the wall closest to the business complex, when Cox announced that it sounded like Nicky had apprehended the suspect…. Purnell states that Cox did not go over the wall and enter Mr. Porter's backyard until after Cox announced the bite.”</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">Cox announcing that “it sounded like Nicky had apprehended the suspect” means that the dog had been allowed to roam freely in the back yard without being in the clear line of sight of any officer.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>This would presumably be a violation of protocol.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">Jesse Porter, 89 years old, was in the back yard into which Nicky had been lowered.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Nicky was trained to bite and hold a suspect, and Nicky bit Porter’s leg, leaving a gaping hole in the calf muscle, exposing tendons and muscle. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Despite the severity of the injury, Officer Cox said that Porter did not make any noise or move in response to Nicky’s bite.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>None of the officers at the scene recounted how long Nicky’s bite of Porter continued.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The court stated that it appeared that if Porter did not struggle, he was not likely bitten multiple times but that the amount of force in a single bite had to be “significant” as it “was sufficient to sever most of Mr. Porter’s calf muscle from his leg….”</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">The Hayward Fire Department and American Medical Response arrived to provide medical care to Porter and transported him to Eden Medical Center. Pictures of the wound from the Medical Center showed most of the calf muscle missing from Porter’s leg.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The leg became gangrenous and had to be amputated above the knee on June 10, 2011.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Porter went into a residential care facility, where he died on July 27, 2011.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">Porter’s children and estate sued the City of Hayward and the three officers involved, alleging violations of Porter’s constitutional rights and various state law claims.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The defendants moved for summary judgment. The following issues were before the court:</div><ul><li>Whether Cox’s conduct was unreasonable under the circumstances (if not grossly negligent).</li><li>Whether the officers were entitled to immunity, and if so, as to which claims.</li><li>Whether the City of Hayward was liable for the allegedly unconstitutional and tortious conduct of its employees. </li></ul><div class="MsoNormal"></div><div class="MsoNormal"><b>Testimony of K-9 Unit Supervisors</b></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">The defendant officers and City argued that the deposition testimony of Sergeant Raymond Sisson, Hayward’s K-9 Unit Supervisor, was inadmissible because it lacked foundation and personal knowledge and was irrelevant.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Sisson testified about whether he reviewed Nicky’s training records with Cox and had discussed best practices for using a police dog in a residential area.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>He stated that he held weekly meetings with the officers of his unit to discuss training, incidents that have occurred, and how the unit could improve.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The court held that Sisson could appropriately testify about what the best practices of a K-9 unit should be, and that he had personal knowledge of his reviews of Nicky’s records.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Sisson also testified that common practice in a residential area is to have officers tell nearby residents to remain in their homes and bring their pets inside.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Holding this testimony to be relevant, the court overruled defendants’ objections to this witness.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">Lieutenant Brian Matthews, the K-9 unit supervisor, said in a deposition that in a residential area, K-9 handlers should keep their dogs in close proximity and in view at all times.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The court also held this testimony admissible.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It must be wondered if the officers were convinced that the robber had fled into or even lived in one of the mobile homes, meaning that an announcement to the residents would assure that the criminal would remain hidden while they searched the area.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal"><b>Testimony on Surveillance Footage </b></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">The defendants also objected to the testimony of Officer Craig Fovel, who had reviewed surveillance footage showing the direction in which the robbery suspects fled.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The defendants argued that Cox and Nicky tracked in the direction they did because they had seen the footage, perhaps a way of arguing that Nicky had not focused on any scent.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>If so, then the argument may have been that Nicky attacked Porter because he was not tracking at all and acted as he would if deployed to bite and hold a suspect.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The court held that testimony regarding when the surveillance footage was played to be relevant.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal"><b>Nicky’s Records </b></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">According to the complaint filed in the case, “Nicky is a full grown male Shephard [sic], imported by the Hayward Police Department from the Netherlands at a cost of over $10,000, and trained in hard bitework.”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">The defendants produced records of all deployments of Hayward police dogs in the field up to the incident date, K-9 unit training records, and documents related to Cox’s personnel file, but they also sought additional records regarding complaints that had been made against Hayward’s K-9 officers which the court ordered to be produced.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Nevertheless, the plaintiffs alleged some records had not been produced but the court declined to compel additional discovery.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal"><b>Use of Excessive Force by Handler</b></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">The court then reviewed a number of Fourth Amendment cases, noting that the gravity of a particular intrusion requires an analysis of the type and amount of force inflicted, but also requires considering the severity of the crime, whether the suspect posed an immediate threat to the safety of the officers and others, and whether the suspect was actively resisting arrest or attempting to evade arrest.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><i>See Miller v. Clark County</i>, 340 F.3d 959 (9<sup>th</sup> Cir. 2003).<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>(For an extensive discussion of <i>Miller</i> and other cases, see <i>Police and Military Dogs</i>, Chapter 20: Suspect Apprehension and Bite Issues.) </div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">The court noted that although Nicky was trained in the bite and hold method of suspect apprehension, Officer Cox said he had only commanded Nicky to track, which meant that the dog was “to continue the trail and alert when [he] locates a suspect.”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The dog here, of course, did more than alert.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Cox also stated that Nicky was not trained to bite a person who surrenders and is passive.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>He was trained to rebite if he detected a person escaping or attacking.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Sergeant Sisson testified that Hayward K-9s were trained to apprehend on their own, that an officer did not need to give a separate command to bite. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Directly contradicting Cox, he also stated that “whether the individual is passive or aggressive,” the dog would bite and hold a suspect.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">The court concluded with regard to the claim for a Fourth Amendment violation by Officer Cox:</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">“The testimony of Sisson and Matthews calls into question the reasonableness of Cox's decision to deploy Nicky, on a thirty-three-foot leash, into the backyard of a private residence, without giving any warning to those residents. This, coupled with the disputed fact of whether Cox remained on the far side of the wall while Nicky searched through Mr. Porter's backyard, eventually biting and severely injuring Porter, leaves a sizeable task for the jury in determining whether Cox's use of Nicky was reasonable under the circumstances. Accordingly, the Court DENIES the motion for summary judgment on plaintiffs' [42 U.S.C.] § 1983 claim against Cox for the use of excessive force.”</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal"><b>Liability of Other Officers Present</b></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">The federal district court discussed cases that had held that officers have a duty to intercede with fellow officers who are violating the constitutional rights of suspects or citizens.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Both Officers Purnell and Miller were present when Cox lowered Nicky into the back yard, and Purnell actually helped with the lowering of the dog by holding the end of the leash.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Thus, the court declined to dismiss the § 1983 claims against these two officers or against the City.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal"><b>Qualified Immunity Applies to Some Claims </b></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">The court cited <i>Watkins v. City of Oakland</i>, 145 F.3d 1087 (9<sup>th</sup> Cir. 1998) for the proposition that using a police dog trained to bite and hold to effectuate a seizure is not a per se use of excessive force.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>(See Police and Military Dogs, p. 268, for detailed discussion of <i>Watkins</i>.)<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>However, no Ninth Circuit case has held explicitly that a failure to warn before a seizure by a police dog is a violation of the Fourth Amendment, though the Fourth and Eighth Circuits have so held.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Cases in three other circuits have “concluded that a prior warning is not dispositive of the reasonableness of seizing an individual with a police dog, and thus there is no clearly established right to be warned.”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">Because the law on the matter is not clear in the Ninth Circuit, the court held that the “individual officers “are therefore entitled to qualified immunity from plaintiffs’ excessive force claim under § 1983, and the Court GRANTS the individual officers' motion for summary judgment.”</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal"><b>Liability of City of Hayward </b></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">The court noted that Cox in his deposition had stated that prior to biting Porter, Nicky had bitten three other people who were not the intended targets of a search.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>He had bitten a non-suspect while attempting to apprehend a suspect in an armed robbery.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>According to the court’s summary:</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">“The suspect was just outside the open doorway to a business…. When he would not surrender to the police, Cox ordered Nicky to apprehend the suspect…. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Instead Nicky ran past the suspect, into the business, and bit another man unrelated to the robbery…. Cox chased after Nicky and found him biting the victim's leg.”</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">Sergeant Sisson, according to his deposition, had never discussed how frequently Nicky failed at searching for people in either deployment or training. This was stated despite the fact that Cox and Nicky had responded to 3,100 calls for service in Nicky’s time with the Hayward Police Department. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>This indicates why good recordkeeping is important.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Although this number seems large, it could mean little more than that the handler and dog were on duty when thousands of events of significance to the police department occurred.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">The court concluded that “it remains for the jury to decide whether Nicky’s training was sufficient for the work the City had him doing and whether the City’s continued deployment of Cox and Nicky was a practice that resulted in the violation of Mr. Porter’s Fourth Amendment rights.”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">As to failures in the training of Cox and Nicky, the court concluded:</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">“Considering them in the light most favorable to plaintiffs, the facts plaintiffs have put forth to show the City has a policy of using improperly trained dogs are equally supportive of their theory that the City's failure to train their K–9 unit resulted in a violation of Mr. Porter's constitutional rights. From these facts, a reasonable jury could conclude that the City disregarded the obvious consequence that Nicky would bite a person other than the intended target of his search by continuing to deploy Nicky and Officer Cox.”</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">The statement should probably have emphasized improper training of the officers more than the dog.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The dog’s action was only the culmination of a long train of human errors.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The court also held that the City of Hayward’s failure to investigate and discipline the officers may have amounted to a ratification of unconstitutional conduct:</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">“After Nicky bit Mr. Porter, Officer Cox called Sergeant Sisson to report the bite. Sisson encouraged him that he did nothing wrong, affirmed that he could not have done anything differently, and called the incident an unfortunate accident [per Sisson’s deposition]. Yet both Sisson and Matthews testified that Cox should have kept Nicky in close proximity and alerted the residents before continuing the search through their backyards. Furthermore, Sisson did not investigate the incident other than speaking to Cox and reviewing his report…. He did not read the other officers' reports or the dispatch report…. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Nor did any of Sisson's supervisors ask whether the deployment was reasonable…. Sisson did, however, discuss the incident with the K–9 handlers at a meeting…. Drawing all inferences in favor of plaintiffs, the Court finds that plaintiffs have shown a dispute of material fact as to whether the City's failure to investigate and discipline the officers for use of force against Mr. Porter demonstrates that the City ratifies unconstitutional conduct.”</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal"><b>Assault and Battery Claim Survives </b></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">A claim for assault and Battery against the police officers was not dismissed under the qualified immunity ruling because that concept does not apply to a state law tort claim.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>A civil battery claim may be satisfied by showing that a defendant acted with willful disregard for the plaintiff’s rights:</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">“Plaintiffs have shown that Cox deployed a dog trained to bite and hold on a thirty-three-foot leash over a wall and into a backyard without warning. This is sufficient to establish a dispute as to whether Cox's decision evinces a reckless or willful disregard for a plaintiff likely to be in that backyard, as Mr. Porter was.”</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">Consequently, this claim was allowed to proceed.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>A negligence claim also survived as to the officers, though not as to the City of Hayward as there is no state statute imposing a duty of care on the City to train its K-9 unit.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>However, California law imposes liability on municipalities for the actions of their employees under the doctrine of respondeat superior.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Since Officers Cox, Purnell, and Miller were not immune from plaintiffs’ state law claims, neither was the City.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">Finally, the court allowed that the jury could consider punitive damages against the City for on the § 1983 claim, as well as on a state law claim that the City acted with “willful and conscious disregard of the rights or safety of others,” under California Civil Code § 3294(c)(1).<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal"><b>Conclusion</b></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">The federal district court summarizes its lengthy decision with a list of the claims that remain to be tried:</div><div class="MsoNormal"></div><ol><li>§ 1983 claim for excessive force against the City of Hayward. </li><li>Assault and battery, negligence, and wrongful death against the officers. </li><li>Vicarious liability against the City for the tortious acts of the officers. </li><li>California Civil Code § 3342 claim against the City.</li></ol><div class="MsoNormal"></div><div class="MsoNormal">The decision is well-reasoned.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Not surprisingly, the case settled before trial for, according to <a href="http://www.dogexpert.com/settlement-in-california-police-dog-bite-attack-that-may-have-killed-89-year-old-man/" target="_blank">news reports</a>, $1.5 million.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> According to <a href="http://www.sfgate.com/crime/article/Hayward-to-pay-family-of-victim-of-police-dog-bite-4671499.php" target="_blank">an article by Henry K. Lee of the San Francisco </a></span><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"><a href="http://www.sfgate.com/crime/article/Hayward-to-pay-family-of-victim-of-police-dog-bite-4671499.php" target="_blank">Chronicle</a>, Hayward will pay $250,000, with the rest picked up by insurance. </span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">The most disturbing aspect of the case is that the K-9 unit had supervisors who did very little supervising and seemed unaware of the risks that were coming from an officer whose dog had already attacked innocent bystanders.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Here, though supposedly a tracking situation, there is some question whether the dog was really following a scent.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>To lower such a dog into a back yard ahead of its handler, even for a minute, would seem highly negligent.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">The case is also a lesson for fellow officers who, often in the interest of station camaraderie, overlook violations of protocol and apparent recklessness of a dog handler with whom they have been assigned to work.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>A police department that does not make it possible for such officers to bring their doubts to the attention of superiors is not well managed.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">One also wonders if the insurance carrier for the City of Hayward will be willing to continue coverage of a police department with such policies and weaknesses in its canine unit. The city will have to decide if such a risk should be allowed to continue. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Canine units, or at least teams with suspect apprehension functions, are sometimes disbanded solely to avoid passing on legal costs and rapidly escalating insurance premiums to taxpayers.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal"><i>McKay v. City of Hayward</i>, 2013 WL 2605782 (N.D. Cal. 2013)</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">This blog was written by John Ensminger and L.E. Papet.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></div>Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12665938105899033120noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2718580891048037671.post-90118153394208620552013-08-05T02:08:00.000-07:002014-02-22T13:30:29.832-08:00Sight and Scent Identifications Collapse Eleven Years after Conviction<div class="MsoNormal">Gilbert Aguilar was convicted of first degree murder in 2002 in Los Angeles Superior Court (B164237, B174532, 2004 WL 2051385). An appeal of the conviction failed. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>In 2009, he filed a habeas corpus petition with the federal district court for the Central District of California, which was denied (CV 06-00554, 2009 WL 509127). Both cases were summarized in an <a href="http://doglawreporter.blogspot.com/2010/05/scent-identifications-and-lineups-in-us.html" target="_blank">earlier blog</a>.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>He appealed the district court’s denial of his habeas corpus petition, and the Ninth Circuit has now reversed the district court and ordered the State of California to release Aguilar from custody or give him a new trial. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal"><b>Crime and Police Sketch of Shooter </b></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">John Guerrero was murdered on July 25, 2001, while waiting for a red light to change in La Puente, a town east of Los Angeles.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>A passenger got out of a white Volkswagen, walked to Guerrero’s car, and discharged seven rounds from a semi-automatic pistol through the car window aiming only at the driver.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Guerrero was dead but the other passengers had ducked and were unhurt.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal"><div style="text-align: right;"><table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; margin-left: 1em; text-align: right;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg6FMS8WJ3iNWW-AU3RXwXdFNEoo9459xAFwhCTWwYz4heO20b7ZPGs7duBzLNr7oioiT4Uy4t6Ps8jfs897dIoKsX8dl_Hk8Euom_Xye41dplQjBFSIdlO4VOtk_66preeQvE21qZkCZ4/s1600/Aguilar+photos+and+sketch+per+9th+Cir.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="291" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg6FMS8WJ3iNWW-AU3RXwXdFNEoo9459xAFwhCTWwYz4heO20b7ZPGs7duBzLNr7oioiT4Uy4t6Ps8jfs897dIoKsX8dl_Hk8Euom_Xye41dplQjBFSIdlO4VOtk_66preeQvE21qZkCZ4/s640/Aguilar+photos+and+sketch+per+9th+Cir.jpg" width="640" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Which Photo Looks More Like the Drawing?</td></tr></tbody></table></div>About a month after the murder, a police artist made a sketch of the shooter based on descriptions of eyewitnesses, which did not include the passengers in Guerrero’s car who claimed not to have the perpetrator’s face. A probation officer thought the sketch looked like Gilbert Aguilar. A photograph of Aguilar and photographs of five other individuals were shown to the eyewitnesses who had helped the sketch artist, and all agreed the perpetrator looked like Aguilar, though only one made a positive identification.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>(Research has indicated that a large number of variables, including putting someone in a lineup that resembles the perpetrator or who looks like a criminal, may increase the likelihood of a misidentification.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>G.L. Wells, M. Small, S. Penrod, R.S. Malpass, S.M. Fulero, and C.A.E. Brimascombe, (1998). Eyewitness Identification Procedures: Recommendations for Lineups and Photospreads. <i>Law and Human Behavior, 22(6)</i>.)</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal"><b>Eyewitness Statements </b></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">The only issue at the trial was the identity of the shooter.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Aguilar’s defense was that another man who looked somewhat like Aguilar, named Richard Osuna, was the shooter.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>One witness testified that “word on the street” was that Osuna, known as Gangster, had shot Guerrero.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>After Aguilar’s arrest, secretly taped conversations he had with his girlfriend when she visited him in jail indicated that he was seeking ways to get evidence regarding Osuna to the police, but he was afraid because he and Osuna were in the same gang and Osuna would be likely to retaliate.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">The Ninth Circuit recounted the statements various eyewitnesses gave concerning the perpetrator as follows:</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">“[T]he eyewitnesses’ height, weight, and age estimates during the police investigation more closely resemble Richard Osuna (no more than 5’7” and 16 years old) than Aguilar (no less than 5’11” and 20 years old) at the time of the murder. Desiree Hoefer estimated the suspect to be no taller than 5’4”.Victor Jara estimated him to be 5’5” or 5’6”. After speaking to the Jaras and Kevin Feeney, Deputy Sheriff Blackmer described the suspect as 5’5”. Only Omar Soltero stated to investigators that the shooter was taller, and even he estimated the shooter to be several inches shorter than Aguilar. According to expert testimony, the witnesses would have been expected to overestimate, not underestimate, the height of a man carrying a gun. The eyewitnesses’ weight and age estimates are also more similar to Osuna than to Aguilar. Deputy Sheriff Blackmer reported, after speaking to the eyewitnesses, that the suspect was 130 pounds. That is 20 pounds lighter than Aguilar’s reported weight. Additionally, Hoefer and the Jaras estimated the perpetrator to be substantially younger than Aguilar.”</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">Eyewitnesses were not shown a photograph of Osuna at the time they were shown the six photographs that included one of Aguilar.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Copies of the sketch and the photographs of Aguilar and Osuna were included in an appendix to the Ninth Circuit opinion and are reproduced here side by side.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">The circuit court also noted that several of the eyewitnesses changed their testimony at trial from what they had said during the police investigation.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal"><b>Scent Identification</b></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">According to the Ninth Circuit:</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">“To supplement the physical evidence and eyewitness testimony, the prosecution put on evidence that a trained scent dog, Reilly, had identified Aguilar’s scent on the white Volkswagen. Shortly after Aguilar was arrested, Officer Joe D’Allura used Reilly to perform a scent comparison test between Aguilar’s scent and the scent found in the white Volkswagen. Scent comparison tests are based on the idea that every person has a unique scent, and that dogs can identify particular scents as belonging to particular objects and persons. A scent transfer unit extracted scent from Aguilar’s clothes and from the impounded vehicle. The extracted scents were then placed in sterile gauze ‘scent pads.’</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">“Reilly was first given a sample of Aguilar’s scent. Reilly then was led to a lineup of four scent pads, one of which had been collected from the passenger side of the impounded Volkswagen. He was trained to bark if he perceived a match between the sample scent and any of the scent pads. Reilly barked at the third scent pad, signaling a match between the scent pad from the Volkswagen and the scent from Aguilar’s clothes. While there were four scent pads in the line-up, Reilly only reached the third scent pad before he signaled a match. Reilly did not signal a match on the spent casings from the bullets fired at Guerrero.”</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">Although the failure of the dog to make a match as the casings might be exculpatory, it might also mean that the person who loaded the weapon was not in the VW at all.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">The scent tests were conducted on September 4, 2001.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Aguilar’s scent had been taken from his clothes when he was arrested the day before.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Officer D’Allura was unsure of when scent was taken from the impounded VW.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>On cross examination he stated that it would have had to be taken within a week of the individual sitting in it, but later said that it could be taken later than that if the car had not been used “by other people and things.”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">Aguilar’s girlfriend testified that she sometimes wore Aguilar’s (her boyfriend’s) clothes and speculated that she might have put his scent into the VW.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>(This has been shown to be scientifically possible.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>See studies described in Transfer of Scent through Clothes, <i>Police and Military Dogs</i>, pp. 56-7.) </div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">The jury was instructed that the dog scent evidence had been received to show that the defendant was a perpetrator of the crime of murder and that the jury should “consider the training, proficiency, experience, and proven ability, if any, of the dog.” </div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal"><b>Jury Deliberations</b></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">The jurors asked for a response from the judge as to this question: if “the D.A.’s office did not pursue the ‘Richard Osuna’ lead,” was this was something the jury could consider in reaching a verdict.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The judge responded that “the state of mind of the investigator or the prosecutor, except as it relates to a bias, intent or other motive to fabricate evidence, is not relevant to the guilt or innocence” of the defendant.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">After one juror was dismissed and an alternate installed, the jury found Aguilar guilty and he was sentenced to 50 years to life in prison. </div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal"><b>Police Dog’s Mistaken Identifications</b></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">Defense counsel was unaware at the time of Aguilar’s trial that the prosecution had stipulated in another case that Reilly, the scent dog, had made mistaken identifications on two prior occasions.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>In <i>People v. White</i>, BA 212658 (Los Angeles Superior Court, 2002), the prosecution, while trying to introduce a scent identification made by Reilly, stipulated that in November 1997 Reilly had identified two different men as the source of scent on a murder suspect’s shirt (when it could only have been one of them).<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>In another case, <i>People v. Bruner</i>, BA 216390 (Los Angeles Superior Court, 2001), Reilly had identified as the perpetrator a man who had been in prison at the time the crime was committed.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The judge in <i>White</i> ruled that the dog scent procedures were so flawed that he would not allow the evidence of the scent lineup in. </div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">After the <i>White</i> case, the Los Angeles County Public Defender wrote a letter to the LA District Attorney stating that every defense attorney who represents or has represented an individual in a case in which D’Allura “will or has presented evidence regarding his dog Reilly’s ability to detect scents” should be informed of the judge’s decision with regard to such evidence in <i>White</i>.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>By the time the prosecution introduced the dog scent evidence in Aguilar’s case, Reilly was no longer working as a scent dog.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The defense counsel was not informed of any of these facts at the time of Aguilar’s trial and did not object to the admissibility of the evidence, though he stated he would have so objected had he known about Reilly’s history.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal"><b><i>Brady v. Maryland </i></b></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">Aguilar’s counsel filed a habeas petition with the California Court of Appeal, arguing that failure to disclose the exculpatory evidence was a violation of <i>Brady v. Maryland</i>, 373 U.S. 83 (1963). That appellate court affirmed Aguilar’s conviction and denied the habeas petition, saying that even had the jury been given the information about Reilly’s mistakes, it was not reasonably probable that “the result would have been different. “<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>A petition to the California Supreme Court was denied without comment.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>As already mentioned, the federal district court also denied a habeas petition by Aguilar in 2009.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">The Ninth Circuit said that the issue before it was whether “the state court reasonably applied <i>Brady</i> to the facts in Aguilar’s case.” <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The circuit court began by observing that there was “no doubt that Reilly’s history of making erroneous scent identifications is exculpatory evidence.”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>There was also no doubt that the Los Angeles District Attorney’s office was aware of the decision on the habeas petition in <i>White</i>.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It was not clear if the individual prosecutor in Aguilar’s case knew about <i>White</i>, but he should have learned about it from D’Allura so either the prosecutor was “hasty in preparing his witness or D’Allura deliberately concealed from him Reilly’s prior record of misidentifications.”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Also, the knowledge of the District Attorney is imputed to prosecutors in his office. </div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">The Ninth Circuit disagreed with the California appellate court as to the result of Aguilar’s trial had the scent identification been excluded:</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">“If the <i>Brady </i>evidence had been presented to the <i>Aguilar </i>court, it is virtually certain that the trial judge would have ruled as did the trial judge in <i>White </i>by excluding the evidence of Reilly’s scent identification. In at least two contemporaneous California state court trials, defense attorneys successfully challenged the admissibility of dog scent lineups.”</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">The other cases were a 1998 unreported case from the Orange County Superior Court (<i>Rhoney</i>, 94HF0957), and <i>Mitchell</i>, discussed in the <a href="http://doglawreporter.blogspot.com/2010/05/scent-identifications-and-lineups-in-us.html" target="_blank">same blog in which <i>White</i> was previously discussed by us</a>.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The circuit court also noted that, even if the dog scent evidence had been admitted despite <i>White</i>, the evidence of prior failures would have “provided powerful impeachment material.”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The jury, instead, “had no reason to question the accuracy of Reilly’s identification of Aguilar.”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">Without the dog scent evidence, the prosecution’s case would have been very weak:</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">“The gunman’s identity was the only issue in Aguilar’s case. Absent Reilly’s dog scent testimony, there was no corroborating evidence for the shaky eyewitness identifications. There was no forensic evidence, murder weapon, or confession. The prosecution did not tie Guerrero and Aguilar to each other in any way. The only motive given for the killing was the unsubstantiated suggestion that Guerrero had trespassed into the territory of Aguilar’s Puente Street gang, and this theory was suspect given that Guerrero was shot numerous times at close range while his passengers–equally trespassing–were left unharmed. The prosecution’s own gang expert testified that the fact that only Guerrero was shot indicates that he was the intended target, undercutting the government’s theory that this was a gang rivalry shooting. Richard Osuna, a suspect who had a motive to commit a targeted shooting, and who more closely resembled the eyewitness descriptions, had not been investigated.”</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal"><b>Conclusion</b></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">The Ninth Circuit held that “the prosecution’s failure to disclose that Reilly had a history of mistaken identifications violated <i>Brady v. Maryland</i>, and the California courts’ decision to the contrary was an unreasonable application of <i>Brady</i>.” The circuit court required “the State of California to release Aguilar from custody unless it grants him a new trial to commence within a reasonable period of time to be determined by the district court.”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">The case is correctly decided, though it does not go to the heart of what is wrong with scent identifications as used by U.S. law enforcement and accepted all too often by U.S. courts.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>As has been <a href="http://works.bepress.com/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1000&context=john_ensminger" target="_blank">argued elsewhere</a><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"></span>, scent lineups can be conducted in a rigorous manner in carefully controlled environments, preferably with multiple dogs, but that is not being done in the U.S. (except perhaps in some FBI investigations).<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It is our opinion that even had there been no mistakes in Reilly’s history, no verifiable false positives, the sort of procedure used by D’Allura with Reilly should not be admissible in any case.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><br /><br /><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"><i>Aguilar v. Woodford</i>, 06-cv-00554 (9th Cir. 2013) </span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">This blog was written by John Ensminger and L.E. Papet.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The authors thank Daniëlle Bes for comments on the case.</div>Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12665938105899033120noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2718580891048037671.post-64172131039749422072013-08-02T18:09:00.000-07:002014-02-22T13:30:29.879-08:00There May Be A Poisonous Tree but Fruit That Isn't From It Can Still Get into Evidence: How a Drug Dog's Alert Allowed a Prosecution to Go ForwardBefore we get to the case, let us try to imagine what it <b><i>might</i></b> have been like for one of the defendants.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>To bring the argument home, I will use a hypothetical involving author and reader: <br /><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">My name is Rick.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Yours is Frank. We met a few times a year ago and I told you that I occasionally need a driver to help me move fruit.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I usually work for someone else but occasionally I get a chance to make real money by handling my own shipment.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I call you up out of the blue one day and say I need you to drive a rig from Memphis to Baltimore.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>You’ll make three times what you do at your day job and I ask you to take a few days off from your job to help me.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>You agree.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I tell you to meet me at a diner in Memphis in two days, not far from where you live.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I also tell you that, if you get to the diner before me, you should look for a guy named Louis.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>He will be short and thin, about 30, wearing a Phillies cap.</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">You get to the diner and find Louis, who is someone you realize you saw with me when we met before.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>You ask Louis some questions about the job but he is not very talkative.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>You buy a paper and read it while the two of you wait for me.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>When I arrive, you ask me the questions Louis would not answer.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>What type of fruit will we be hauling?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I say that it’s actually a repositioning drive and the truck is already in the parking lot of the restaurant. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>There will be nothing on the truck. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It’s also not going to Baltimore.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It’s just from the parking lot to a warehouse on the edge of Memphis, and maybe from there to Mississippi.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">You leave the restaurant with me and Louis.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I show you the rig and tell you to start it up and follow me and Louis in a Chevy.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>When everyone arrives at the truck stop, I tell you to wait there while Louis and I go get someone in Mississippi.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I say that we will be gone several hours and that you can use the facilities in the stop if you need to.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">You have grown suspicious but see no way to easily get out of the situation.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>You suspect that drugs may be involved but see no evidence of that other than my evasive answers and Louis’s unusual behavior.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> There is nothing in the trailer. </span>When I and Louis come back, we have another individual and I suggest the three of us get in the back of the trailer and discuss what we’re going to do. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>You ask what needs to be discussed if this is only a reposition drive but I say that there will be several drivers and we have to discuss who will go first. While we’re sitting in the back, you see police cars arrive and line up behind the rig.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Some of the cars have dogs.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>You ask me what’s going on but I tell you to shut up and say nothing.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">While we’re standing outside the rig, a dog alerts to a location underneath.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>All of us are arrested.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal"><b>Following a Suspected Drug Trafficker </b></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">Now to the Sixth Circuit case: </div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">A Tennessee state investigator, Joe Hoing, on special assignment to the Federal Drug Administration Task Force, received a tip concerning Emilio Rivas.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The confidential informant said that Rivas had used cash to purchase a one-way ticket from McAllen, Texas, to Memphis, Tennessee.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Hoing suspected that Rivas was engaged in drug trafficking.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Hoing went to the airport the morning of Rivas’s flight and called his cell number.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Rivas answered the call, thereby identifying himself for Hoing, but Hoing hung up and began to follow Rivas.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">In Memphis, Hoing and his team tracked Rivas to the Kettle Restaurant where Rivas found a tractor-trailer in the parking lot and climbed into the driver’s seat.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Hoing called in the license plate of the vehicle and learned it was registered to Rivas.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Anibal Figueredo-Diaz (roughly the role you were given in the hypothetical that began this blog) was in the passenger seat but got out and walked to a nearby gas station.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Rivas got out to inspect the trailer’s undercarriage before getting back into the driver’s seat.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Figueredo-Diaz returned and got back into the passenger seat.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Dario Morales-Loya arrived in the lot in a black Chevy Blazer and Rivas got out of the trailer and joined him.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Figueredo-Diaz took over the driver’s seat and followed them.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">Hoing’s team tracked both vehicles as they headed southbound on Interstate 55 to a truck stop.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Hoing continued to follow the Blazer when it left the stop, directing another officer to stay with the trailer.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The Blazer went to Mississippi where Rivas and Morales-Loya met more people.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Rivas and an unidentified man returned to the truck stop in Tennessee, driving a Buick.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The Buick and the trailer then went to a warehouse in Mississippi near where Rivas had driven previously in the Blazer.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">The Sixth Circuit described what happened next:</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">“The four men—Rivas, defendants Morales–Loya and Figueredo–Diaz, and the unidentified man—huddled around the rear of the trailer with its doors wide open. Hoing's crew, all identified in police clothing, approached the men for the purpose of conducting a <i>Terry</i> investigative stop. The four men responded differently. Figueredo–Diaz and Morales–Loya were detained without incident. However, Rivas and the unidentified man fled. The officers pursued them and eventually apprehended Rivas, but the unidentified individual escaped [apparently for good].”</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">An officer with the Olive Branch Police Department arrived with a narcotics detection dog.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>He took the dog beside the tractor-trailer where it alerted to the presence of narcotics.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It also alerted beside the Blazer, the Buick, and a van inside the warehouse.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Officers searched all four vehicles but found no drugs.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">Hoing returned from participating in the search and capture of Rivas and brought his own drug dog inside the trailer, where it gave a positive alert. </div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />“Because Hoing recalled Rivas inspecting the underside of the trailer at the restaurant earlier that day, the agents decided to search the underside of the trailer. There they discovered over 2,100 pounds of marijuana secreted in the trailer's undercarriage. Additionally, in the tractor's cab, the agents found $12,000 in cash, along with Figueredo–Diaz's passport and debit card.”<br /><br />Whether the alerts of the prior dog should have indicated the possibility of drugs being hidden underneath the trailer was not discussed by the court. </div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal"><b>Federal District Court </b></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">The government charged Rivas, Figueredo-Diaz, and Morales-Loya with conspiracy to possess and distribute at least 100 kilograms of marijuana and possession with the intent to distribute the same.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>21 U.S.C. 841(a)(1), 846.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>All three moved to suppress, claiming it was the fruit of an unlawful detention.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>A magistrate judge recommended denying the motions, concluding that agents had reasonable suspicion for the detention.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The federal district judge followed the recommendation as to Rivas, but granted the suppression motions of Figueredo-Diaz and Morales-Loya.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The judge determined that the agents lacked reasonable suspicion to detain these two defendants and brought in the drug dogs as a result of their illegal detention. Therefore, suppression was warranted.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The judge also concluded that the inevitable-discovery doctrine did not render the evidence admissible.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">The government appealed.</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal"><b>Sixth Circuit Analysis</b></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">The Sixth Circuit did not determine whether the detention was unlawful because it held that it did not cause the agents to discover any evidence.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The circuit court noted that evidence is not to be excluded unless the discovery of the evidence was in some sense the product of illegal government activity.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Also, “even if recovered evidence is the product of illegality, it will be suppressed only where doing so yields deterrence benefits that sufficiently outweigh the substantial social costs associated with the exclusion.”</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">The inevitable-discovery doctrine provides that evidence secured through unlawful means is admissible if the prosecution can show that it ultimately or inevitably would have been discovered by lawful means.”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><i>Nix v. Williams</i>, 467 U.S. 431, 104 S.Ct. 2501, 81 L.Ed.2d 377 (1984).<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The circuit court held, however, that the illegal detention, if such it was as to Figueredo-Diaz and Morales-Loya, was not the cause of the agents discovering any evidence, and the doctrine would only apply if the detention were the reason the agents discovered the evidence.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Rather, “the agents discovered contraband in the tractor-trailer wholly apart from their detention of Figueredo-Diaz and Morales-Loya.... A positive indication from a narcotics-detection dog supplied the agents with probable cause to search the tractor-trailer without a warrant.”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>For this the circuit court cited the recent Supreme Court case of <i>Florida v. Harris</i>, 133 S.Ct. 1057, 185 L.Ed.2d 61 (2013), among other cases.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">“It was the agents' reasonable suspicion regarding Rivas that led them to detain the tractor-trailer long enough for a dog to sniff it; the sniff, in other words, was completely dependent upon Rivas's conduct, and had nothing to do with defendants being detained. Hoing's unchallenged testimony was that the decision to run a drug dog by the tractor-trailer was made once (and because) Rivas and the other individual fled, and that the dog sniff was going to happen regardless of whether Figueredo–Diaz and Morales–Loya were there. Therefore, defendants' detention did not cause the government's discovery of the challenged evidence.”<br /><br />The circuit court quoted <i>U.S. v. Clariot</i>, 655 F.3d 550 (6<sup>th</sup> Cir. 2011), which had stated:<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>“The exclusionary rule forbids the government from using evidence cause by an illegal seizure, not evidence found around the time of a seizure.”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">An earlier Sixth Circuit decision, <i>U.S. v. Carter</i>, 14 F.3d 1150 (6<sup>th</sup> Cir. 1994) had very similar facts to the present case:</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">“There, the defendant was a passenger in a vehicle stopped for a traffic infraction. During the stop, police unlawfully arrested the driver, so his later-given consent to search the vehicle was tainted. Officers recovered several hundred pounds of marijuana during the unlawful search. We acknowledged the defendant's legal ability, his 'standing,' to challenge the basis for the traffic stop, … but he never argued it was unlawful; he instead claimed he was illegally detained once the driver had been arrested, and we assumed he was right. Upholding the ruling against suppression, we held that 'it was the arrest of the driver and the seizure of the driver's vehicle that led to the discovery of the marijuana, not any violation of the defendant's rights.' …. In other words, the defendant's detention ‘was not the proximate cause of the search of the van,’ so the marijuana could not be ‘fruit’ of that detention…. We explained: ‘Suppose that at the time of the driver's arrest the police had summoned a taxi cab for [the defendant] and told him he was free to leave. The marijuana would still have been discovered, because it was located in a van owned and controlled by [the driver] (who was not going anywhere until his vehicle had been searched) and not in a vehicle controlled by [the defendant].’ …. Likewise here: had Figueredo–Diaz and Morales–Loya been allowed to leave, the marijuana still would have been discovered and seized.”</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">The circuit court also noted that even if Figueredo-Diaz been allowed to leave, he would not have been allowed to leave with the trailer because the agents reasonably believed that Rivas was using the vehicle to traffick drugs.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><br /><br /><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">To carry this over to the analogy of reader and author, you and me, it is possible for my nefariousness to provide an adequate reason to conduct a search that will result in evidence that can be used against you, even if your presence at the time and place is innocent and an arrest of you was illegal. </span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal"><b>Conclusion</b></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">The two defendants may have been illegally detained—that issue was not resolved by the Sixth Circuit and the trial court may yet hold that such was the case.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>These defendants may still be able to argue that there is insufficient reason to connect them to the ton of marijuana found in the vehicle.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>This seems a long shot, but the fight is not over.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Although Figueredo-Diaz may be as innocent as you were in the hypothetical with which we began this blog, the law has to establish principles by which evidence is included or excluded.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The principles have to be applied uniformly based on a balancing of rights, and will inevitably allow for a spectrum of possible involvement in a criminal enterprise ranging from innocence (as you were in the hypothetical) to guilt.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><br /><br />It is not clear at this stage of the proceedings where the case will go as to these two players in the events of that day in Memphis.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> Nevertheless, t</span>he case is correctly decided.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal"><i>U.S. v. Figueredo-Diaz</i>, 2013 WL 2420769 (6<sup>th</sup> Cir. 2013)</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">This blog was written by John Ensminger and L.E. Papet.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></div>Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12665938105899033120noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2718580891048037671.post-11345983749648488922013-07-26T06:54:00.000-07:002014-02-22T13:30:29.928-08:00Canine Security Costs for the Baghdad Embassy Double in Three Years from $24 to $50 Million<div class="MsoNormal">In a redacted report released by the U.S. State Department Inspector General in May 2013, <i>Inspection of Baghdad and Constituent Posts Iraq</i> (<a href="http://oig.state.gov/documents/organization/210403.pdf" target="_blank">ISP-I-13-24A</a>), <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"></span>the IG states that several "security programs at Embassy Baghdad are atypical. The sense and warn system (identifies, tracks, and warns employees of incoming rocket and mortar fire), biometric access control (daily iris scans or fingerprinting of local employees), emergency reaction teams, and <i>explosives detection dogs</i> are but a few." </div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">The IG’s report includes a table listing the annual costs of the unique security programs that are operational at the U.S. embassy in Baghdad: </div><div class="MsoNormal"><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:WordDocument> <w:View>Normal</w:View> <w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom> <w:TrackMoves/> <w:TrackFormatting/> <w:PunctuationKerning/> <w:ValidateAgainstSchemas/> <w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>false</w:SaveIfXMLInvalid> <w:IgnoreMixedContent>false</w:IgnoreMixedContent> <w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>false</w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText> <w:DoNotPromoteQF/> <w:LidThemeOther>EN-US</w:LidThemeOther> <w:LidThemeAsian>X-NONE</w:LidThemeAsian> <w:LidThemeComplexScript>HE</w:LidThemeComplexScript> <w:Compatibility> <w:BreakWrappedTables/> <w:SnapToGridInCell/> <w:WrapTextWithPunct/> <w:UseAsianBreakRules/> <w:DontGrowAutofit/> <w:SplitPgBreakAndParaMark/> <w:EnableOpenTypeKerning/> <w:DontFlipMirrorIndents/> <w:OverrideTableStyleHps/> </w:Compatibility> <m:mathPr> <m:mathFont m:val="Cambria Math"/> <m:brkBin m:val="before"/> <m:brkBinSub m:val="--"/> <m:smallFrac m:val="off"/> <m:dispDef/> <m:lMargin m:val="0"/> <m:rMargin m:val="0"/> <m:defJc m:val="centerGroup"/> <m:wrapIndent m:val="1440"/> <m:intLim m:val="subSup"/> <m:naryLim m:val="undOvr"/> </m:mathPr></w:WordDocument> </xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:LatentStyles DefLockedState="false" DefUnhideWhenUsed="true" DefSemiHidden="true" DefQFormat="false" DefPriority="99" LatentStyleCount="267"> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="0" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Normal"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="heading 1"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 2"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 3"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 4"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 5"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 6"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 7"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 8"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 9"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 1"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 2"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 3"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 4"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 5"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 6"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 7"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 8"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 9"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="35" QFormat="true" Name="caption"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="10" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Title"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="1" Name="Default Paragraph Font"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="11" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Subtitle"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="22" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Strong"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="20" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Emphasis"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="59" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Table Grid"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Placeholder Text"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="1" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="No Spacing"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 1"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 1"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 1"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 1"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 1"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 1"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Revision"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="34" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="List Paragraph"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="29" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Quote"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="30" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Intense Quote"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 1"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 1"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 1"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 1"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 1"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 1"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 1"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 1"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 2"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 2"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 2"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 2"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 2"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 2"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 2"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 2"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 2"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 2"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 2"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 2"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 2"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 2"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 3"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 3"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 3"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 3"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 3"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 3"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 3"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 3"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 3"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 3"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 3"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 3"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 3"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 3"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 4"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 4"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 4"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 4"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 4"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 4"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 4"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 4"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 4"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 4"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 4"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 4"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 4"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 4"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 5"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 5"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 5"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 5"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 5"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 5"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 5"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 5"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 5"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 5"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 5"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 5"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 5"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 5"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 6"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 6"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 6"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 6"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 6"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 6"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 6"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 6"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 6"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 6"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 6"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 6"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 6"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 6"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="19" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Subtle Emphasis"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="21" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Intense Emphasis"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="31" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Subtle Reference"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="32" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Intense Reference"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="33" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Book Title"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="37" Name="Bibliography"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" QFormat="true" Name="TOC Heading"/> </w:LatentStyles> </xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 10]> <style> /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-priority:99; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; mso-para-margin:0in; mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:11.0pt; font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri; mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-bidi-language:AR-SA;} table.MsoTableGrid {mso-style-name:"Table Grid"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-priority:59; mso-style-unhide:no; border:solid windowtext 1.0pt; mso-border-alt:solid windowtext .5pt; mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; mso-border-insideh:.5pt solid windowtext; mso-border-insidev:.5pt solid windowtext; mso-para-margin:0in; mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:11.0pt; font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri; mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-bidi-language:AR-SA;} </style> <![endif]--> </div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><table border="1" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="MsoTableGrid" style="border-collapse: collapse; border: none; margin-left: .5in; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-padding-alt: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; mso-yfti-tbllook: 1184;"><tbody><tr style="mso-yfti-firstrow: yes; mso-yfti-irow: 0;"> <td style="border: solid windowtext 1.0pt; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; width: 239.4pt;" valign="top" width="319"><div class="MsoNormal" style="mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-autospace: none;"><b><span style="color: black; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-language: HE;">Unique Security Programs </span></b><span style="color: black; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-language: HE;"></span></div></td> <td style="border-left: none; border: solid windowtext 1.0pt; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; width: 99.0pt;" valign="top" width="132"><div class="MsoNormal" style="mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-autospace: none;"><b><span style="color: black; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-language: HE;">Annual Cost </span></b><span style="color: black; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-language: HE;"></span></div></td> </tr><tr style="mso-yfti-irow: 1;"> <td style="border-top: none; border: solid windowtext 1.0pt; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; width: 239.4pt;" valign="top" width="319"><div class="MsoNormal" style="mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-autospace: none;"><span style="color: black; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-language: HE;">Sense and Warn System </span></div></td> <td style="border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-left: none; border-right: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-top: none; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; width: 99.0pt;" valign="top" width="132"><div class="MsoNormal" style="mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-autospace: none;"><span style="color: black; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-language: HE;"><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>$20,632,208 </span></div></td> </tr><tr style="mso-yfti-irow: 2;"> <td style="border-top: none; border: solid windowtext 1.0pt; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; width: 239.4pt;" valign="top" width="319"><div class="MsoNormal" style="mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-autospace: none;"><span style="color: black; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-language: HE;">Biometrics Access Control Program </span></div></td> <td style="border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-left: none; border-right: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-top: none; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; width: 99.0pt;" valign="top" width="132"><div class="MsoNormal" style="mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-autospace: none;"><span style="color: black; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-language: HE;"><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>5,289,986 </span></div></td> </tr><tr style="mso-yfti-irow: 3;"> <td style="border-top: none; border: solid windowtext 1.0pt; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; width: 239.4pt;" valign="top" width="319"><div class="MsoNormal" style="mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-autospace: none;"><span style="color: black; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-language: HE;">Biometrics Badging Program </span></div></td> <td style="border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-left: none; border-right: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-top: none; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; width: 99.0pt;" valign="top" width="132"><div class="MsoNormal" style="mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-autospace: none;"><span style="color: black; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-language: HE;"><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>2,709,934 </span></div></td> </tr><tr style="mso-yfti-irow: 4;"> <td style="border-top: none; border: solid windowtext 1.0pt; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; width: 239.4pt;" valign="top" width="319"><div class="MsoNormal" style="mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-autospace: none;"><span style="color: black; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-language: HE;">Emergency Reaction Teams </span></div></td> <td style="border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-left: none; border-right: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-top: none; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; width: 99.0pt;" valign="top" width="132"><div class="MsoNormal" style="mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-autospace: none;"><span style="color: black; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-language: HE;"><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>36,228,876 </span></div></td> </tr><tr style="mso-yfti-irow: 5;"> <td style="border-top: none; border: solid windowtext 1.0pt; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; width: 239.4pt;" valign="top" width="319"><div class="MsoNormal" style="mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-autospace: none;"><b><i><span style="color: black; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-language: HE;">Canine Screening Program </span></i></b></div></td> <td style="border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-left: none; border-right: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-top: none; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; width: 99.0pt;" valign="top" width="132"><div class="MsoNormal" style="mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-autospace: none;"><i><span style="color: black; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-language: HE;"><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><b>50,939,224 </b></span></i></div></td> </tr><tr style="mso-yfti-irow: 6;"> <td style="border-top: none; border: solid windowtext 1.0pt; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; width: 239.4pt;" valign="top" width="319"><div class="MsoNormal" style="mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-autospace: none;"><span style="color: black; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-language: HE;">Electronic Countermeasures Program </span></div></td> <td style="border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-left: none; border-right: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-top: none; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; width: 99.0pt;" valign="top" width="132"><div class="MsoNormal" style="mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-autospace: none;"><span style="color: black; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-language: HE;"><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>13,890,590 </span></div></td> </tr><tr style="mso-yfti-irow: 7;"> <td style="border-top: none; border: solid windowtext 1.0pt; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; width: 239.4pt;" valign="top" width="319"><div class="MsoNormal" style="mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-autospace: none;"><span style="color: black; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-language: HE;">Green Radio Program </span></div></td> <td style="border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-left: none; border-right: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-top: none; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; width: 99.0pt;" valign="top" width="132"><div class="MsoNormal" style="mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-autospace: none;"><span style="color: black; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-language: HE;"><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>3,181,786 </span></div></td> </tr><tr style="mso-yfti-irow: 8;"> <td style="border-top: none; border: solid windowtext 1.0pt; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; width: 239.4pt;" valign="top" width="319"><div class="MsoNormal" style="mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-autospace: none;"><span style="color: black; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-language: HE;">Modular Tactical Operations Centers </span></div></td> <td style="border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-left: none; border-right: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-top: none; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; width: 99.0pt;" valign="top" width="132"><div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-align: center; text-autospace: none;"><span style="color: black; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-language: HE;">?</span></div></td> </tr><tr style="height: 17.95pt; mso-yfti-irow: 9;"> <td style="border-top: none; border: solid windowtext 1.0pt; height: 17.95pt; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; width: 239.4pt;" valign="top" width="319"><div class="MsoNormal" style="mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-autospace: none;"><span style="color: black; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-language: HE;">Infrared Camera System with operators </span></div></td> <td style="border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-left: none; border-right: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-top: none; height: 17.95pt; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; width: 99.0pt;" valign="top" width="132"><div class="MsoNormal" style="mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-autospace: none;"><span style="color: black; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-language: HE;"><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>3,992,090 </span></div></td> </tr><tr style="mso-yfti-irow: 10;"> <td style="border-top: none; border: solid windowtext 1.0pt; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; width: 239.4pt;" valign="top" width="319"><div class="MsoNormal" style="mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-autospace: none;"><b><span style="color: black; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-language: HE;">Total Annual Operating/Maintenance Cost </span></b><span style="color: black; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-language: HE;"></span></div></td> <td style="border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-left: none; border-right: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-top: none; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; width: 99.0pt;" valign="top" width="132"><div class="MsoNormal" style="mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-autospace: none;"><b><span style="color: black; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-language: HE;">$136,864,694 </span></b><span style="color: black; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-language: HE;"></span></div></td> </tr><tr style="mso-yfti-irow: 11; mso-yfti-lastrow: yes;"> <td style="border-top: none; border: solid windowtext 1.0pt; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; width: 239.4pt;" valign="top" width="319"><div class="MsoNormal" style="mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-autospace: none;"><b><span style="color: black; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-language: HE;">Total Approximate Value of Equipment </span></b><span style="color: black; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-language: HE;"></span></div></td> <td style="border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-left: none; border-right: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-top: none; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; width: 99.0pt;" valign="top" width="132"><div class="MsoNormal" style="mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-autospace: none;"><b><span style="color: black; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-language: HE;">$160,000,000 </span></b><span style="color: black; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-language: HE;"></span></div></td> </tr></tbody></table><br /><div class="MsoNormal">Thus, it appears that explosives detection dogs are the largest annual security expense of the embassy.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><br /><br />The State Department IG s<a href="http://oig.state.gov/documents/organization/149415.pdf" target="_blank">tated in 2010</a><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>that the cost of canine services for the Baghdad Embassy Security Force was $24 million annually.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>We reported on that in a <a href="http://doglawreporter.blogspot.com/2010/08/bomb-dog-fraud-selling-ineffective.html" target="_blank">prior blog</a> here, as well as discussing the serious deficiencies in the canine program that the IG found at the time. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">Given that canine expenses amount to more than a third of Baghdad embassy security expenses, it is curious that the most recent Government Accountability Office report on general U.S. embassy security (<a href="http://www.gao.gov/assets/280/271208.pdf" target="_blank">GAO-08-162, January 2008</a>) fails to mention this aspect of security at all.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Rather, the GAO emphasizes the kinds of walls and gates, and blast-resistant construction, as noted in the graphic of key security standards below.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Presumably this is not because the GAO is unaware of the use of dogs in embassies, but rather because it agrees with the IG that the Baghdad embassy is unique in this regard.<br /><br /></div><table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; margin-left: 1em; text-align: right;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEguOjEM86V-NT0QJBmoCKYT4MOK12sZhtWrop3nVKXuvqGxVrW26U9b6xwujwxnp6m6EIhSQpjSRgm091BUBGrBrokE4OSKc1C2jiboGiJv7QNd6W87hog5oNPjWkkJe06Mcw9U969hjpk/s1600/Secure+Embassy+Features.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="448" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEguOjEM86V-NT0QJBmoCKYT4MOK12sZhtWrop3nVKXuvqGxVrW26U9b6xwujwxnp6m6EIhSQpjSRgm091BUBGrBrokE4OSKc1C2jiboGiJv7QNd6W87hog5oNPjWkkJe06Mcw9U969hjpk/s640/Secure+Embassy+Features.jpg" width="640" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">GAO Graphic of Key Security Standards for Embassies (GAO-08-162)</td></tr></tbody></table><div class="MsoNormal"></div><div class="MsoNormal"><b>Numbers of Dogs at the Embassy </b></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">It is difficult to understand why canine security costs would have doubled in three years at a time when overall embassy personnel are being substantially cut or, to use bureaucratese that appears in the IG’s 2013 report, “rightsized.”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Apparently dog handlers are not being rightsized. In its 2005 search for bidders to provide security services to the Baghdad embassy, a table of guard posts and schedule of guard coverage was attached.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It appeared to list 32 separate assignments for dog handlers.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>(The document is attached to <a href="https://www.fbo.gov/?s=opportunity&mode=form&tab=core&id=1ee0cec6ac31dceb2fae7738fa62af98&_cview=0" target="_blank">Solicitation #SAQMPD05R1014</a>.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">) </span>A performance audit report of March 2010 (The Bureau of Diplomatic Security Baghdad Embassy Security Force, <a href="http://oig.state.gov/documents/organization/140420.pdf" target="_blank">MERO-A-10-05</a>) specifies that there were 34 dog handlers posts in the Embassy Security Force, almost no change in five years.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>That report adds the interesting datum that some of the handlers are Canadian and UK nationals where the original solicitation required that all handlers be U.S. citizens or expatriates.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">On a website page concerning its canine services, RONCO states that it “has supported the Baghdad Embassy Security Force with 117 EDD teams ….”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>This presumably covers most of the period from 2005 to the present.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>If RONCO supplied all the dogs for the Embassy Force (which may not be the case), it would mean that each team is working an average of two to three years.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>G4S’s <a href="http://www.g4sgs.com/pdf/Winter%202012.pdf" target="_blank">company newsletter for 2012</a> states that G4S (parent of RONCO) was awarded a five-year contract with the State Department for canine explosives detection support for the Baghdad Embassy Security Force. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It mentions no increase in the number of handlers and dogs. Thus, it does not appear that the number of dogs in use at any one time, at least for perimeter security, has substantially increased.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">In its 2010 “limited-scope review” of the canine programs that the State Department contracted with, the IG “found systematic weaknesses in canine test procedures that call into question the ability of the canines to effectively detect explosives.”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>RONCO took issue with the IG’s conclusions at the time.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It must be wondered why State is now paying twice as much as it was only three years ago in a country that it no longer views as a war zone.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The Benghazi attack no doubt helped fuel embassy security, but this would only explain the increase in canine team costs if the number of teams substantially increased.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Nor would it seem rational to explain it as an expense required to correct the deficiencies the IG found in 2010, particularly when the contractor <a href="http://civiliancontractors.wordpress.com/2010/10/13/review-finds-that-bomb-sniffing-dogs-in-afghanistan-and-iraq-may-not-be-up-to-snuff/" target="_blank">disagreed with those findings</a><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"></span>.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><br /><br /><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"><b>Effect of Military Drawdown in Iraq </b></span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">The answer as to why canine security now costs twice what it did three years ago may lie in the effects of the military drawdown in Iraq. The Department of Defense Inspector General stated in 2009 that the "U.S. military drawdown will affect protection of the new embassy compound in Baghdad, as well as convoy security provided by the military for goods brought into Iraq to support embassy operations." This report (<a href="http://oig.state.gov/documents/organization/128549.pdf" target="_blank">MERO-A-09-10</a>) noted that there are "approximately 1,900 guards in the Baghdad Embassy Security Force who maintain the embassy's perimeter security." There are also 1,300 personal security specialists associated with the embassy. The following paragraph from the report suggests one area where the State Department may have had to pick up expenses formerly paid by the Defense Department:<br /><br />"The U.S. military provides convoy security (armored vehicle motorcades) for equipment, supplies, food, and fuel brought into Iraq to support embassy operations. According to the embassy’s management officer, the security situation in Iraq prevents the procurement of local food stuffs. Also, there is no “clean” (appropriately refined) fuel available in Iraq, so fuel must be transported by truck to the Embassy from Kuwait. As the military continues its drawdown, the smaller number of military personnel will likely reduce its ability to protect embassy supply convoys."<br /><br />The report then states that contracts "with private security providers for movement protection will substantially increase the cost to the Department" with regard to truck convoys supplying food and fuel. Visiting delegations and dignitaries also require substantial use of dogs to sweep areas in hotels, business locations, routes along which motorcades will travel, etc.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Another 2013 State Department IG Audit (<a href="http://oig.state.gov/documents/organization/210209.pdf" target="_blank">AUD-MERO-13-25</a>), this one of the Bureau of Diplomatic Security relating specifically to Baghdad movement security, mentions dog handlers among those with “protective service positions responsible for actually conducting movement security missions.”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The audit indicates that 20 personnel are required for the “Embassy Program, the Airport Option Program, and the INL-Iraq Program.”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>If 20 dogs and handlers were added to the costs listed in the 2013 audit overall Baghdad embassy security costs, this could explain much of the increase. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span> </div><br /><div class="MsoNormal"><b>What Dogs Do for the Baghdad Embassy</b></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">In 2005, the State Department provided details concerning the dogs it wanted for Baghdad (Solicitation No. SAQMPD05R1014). Working dogs are to have “completed a certified training program from a properly certified, licensed, and industry recognized dog kennel, school, or dog trainer.”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>They are to be “certified as having met the Department of Treasury, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (BATF) standards.”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Further they must “maintain a calm temperament at all times and possess certificates of training equal to that of the Department of the Treasury Odor Recognition Proficiency standard for EOD canines.”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>They must “be able to recognize common explosives used by bombers today.”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Six explosives were specifically mentioned in 2005:</div><ul><li>Black Powder (free flowing, time fuse, or safety fuse)</li><li>Double-base Smokeless Powder</li><li>Dynamite (containing EGDN and NG)</li><li>PETN-based Detonating cord</li><li>RDX-based Detonating cord or C-4</li><li>TNT</li></ul><div class="MsoNormal">Part of the IG’s criticism in 2010 was that dogs had only been trained on five of the six mandatory odors.</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">Dogs must be “selected from large, tractable, intelligent breeds in their prime and in good health.” Certain alerting procedures are required:</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 6.0pt;">“The dog shall be trained to disregard artificial detractors/substances purposely placed in the article to confuse the dog.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The dog shall be trained not to paw or retrieve an explosive or chemical once it has been located; it must be trained to sit to alert the handler that he has located explosive materials.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>In addition to sense of smell, the dog must be eager to perform this type of work.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The animal must be healthy, possess a stable temperament and be anxious to please its handler.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>A minimum of two hour a day training is required, is invoiced as productive time, and may be suspended by the COR [Contracting Officer’s Representative] as necessary.”</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 6.0pt;">Among artificial detractors used to hide IEDs, according to a <a href="http://www.tecom.marines.mil/Portals/120/Docs/Student%20Materials/FMST%20Manual/IED.doc" target="_blank">U.S. Marine Corps Medical Battalion training manual</a>, are animal carcasses, trash, dirt piles, and even human cadavers.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The requirement of using a sit alert is somewhat curious, since dogs often sit when not moving.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>A more definitive signal is to train the dog to lie down, which many explosives-detection dog trainers prefer.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Training dogs daily is optimal, but many U.S. law enforcement agencies make this virtually impossible.</div><div class="MsoNormal">Dogs inspect “all incoming packages, parcels, boxes, containers, vehicles, compounds, facilities and/or other items for the presence of explosives or explosive devices.”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>They are to provide “early warning of impending danger from terrorists and other sources.”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Apparently they might be deployed off the Embassy grounds as they are also to provide “assistance in thwarting terrorist acts directed against the local U.S. Diplomatic community.”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Dogs and handlers participate with the Quick Reaction Force, if necessary. </div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal"></div><div class="MsoNormal">Part of the original Solicitation in 2005 included the following sentences: <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="mso-layout-grid-align: none; mso-pagination: none; text-autospace: none;"><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">"The dog must be trained to conduct perimeter/patrol searches for the purpose of detecting potential threats to the location being guarded.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The dog must also be trained to respond to commands from the dog handler in threatening situations.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The dog will be trained to use the necessary force to restrain assailants and/or unwelcome intruders."</span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">The Department explained that since the dogs were supposed to be Explosive Ordinance Detection Dogs (EOD dogs), the addition of these sentences to the Solicitation meant that the dogs were to be dual-trained, i.e., to be patrol/attack dogs as well. Because of confusion this was causing, and the fact that some bidders were only capable of providing EOD dogs, the Department deleted these sentences from the Solicitation. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>If more dual-trained dogs are now in use in Baghdad, this could explain a small part of the increased expense.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It must be noted, however, that many dogs are imported from Europe by American contractors and are already trained to do bite work before they are sent to Iraq (though contractors may still charge more for a dog if this skill is present). </div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal"><b>Handler Qualifications for Baghdad</b></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">Handlers must be or have the following:</div><ul><li>U.S. citizens or expatriates. (As noted above, this may not be a strict requirement.)</li><li>Native English speakers.</li><li>At least 21 years old.</li><li>Minimum three years of military, similar police, or local guard force experience.</li><li>Passing of physical fitness test.</li><li>Proficiency in the detection of explosives.</li><li>Competent dog handling skills</li><li>Familiarity with physical security and access control matters.</li><li>Marksman-level of weapon qualification in weapons carried.</li></ul><div class="MsoNormal">It is curious that the list calls for marksman-level qualification for weapons, but only competence in dog handling. As to care for the dogs, they are to “be housed in clean facilities while not on duty.”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Shifts were not to be so long that the dog would not maintain “a high state of alertness and attentiveness.”<br /><br />One possible reason for part of the increase is that dog handlers may be getting higher pay.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>A State Department IG performance evaluation of DynCorp (<a href="http://psm.du.edu/media/documents/us_research_and_oversight/dos_oig/audits/us_dos_oig_report_mero-ioq-09-06.pdf" target="_blank">MERO-IQO-09-06</a>), which provides protective services in Iraq, noted several times that the company has had “difficulty maintaining staff in two personal security specialist labor categories, dog handlers and designated marksmen.”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><b> </b><br /><br /><b>Afghan Canine Program May Lose Funding</b></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />While the State Department may funding an increase its use of canine teams, in May the Department of Defense released a report on the Afghan border police (<a href="http://www.dodig.mil/pubs/report_summary.cfm?id=5178" target="_blank">DODIG-2013-081</a>) which states that a canine program developed by coalition forces and German Police Training Teams for those police may not be funded after the withdrawal of coalition forces in 2014. The program currently has 26 dogs with Afghan dog handlers being monitored by the Germans. <br /><br />The report says that "neither Coalition forces nor the German Police Training Teams had planned funding post-2014 to continue the program." No alternative funding sources have been identified, so presumably the Afghan government does not value the program. The report says that discontinuance of the program will "degrade security screening at key crossing sites" and recommends that the NATO commander work with the Afghan Ministry of the Interior and the Afghan Border Police to find a funding source. <br /><br /><b>Conclusion</b></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">The overall cost of security for Iraq operations increased from 2008 through 2010, from approximately $305 million to $594 million according to an <a href="http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/123558.pdf" target="_blank">Iraq Operations Resource Summary</a>.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Even the State Department may be a little unsure of some of the expenses, as its <a href="http://oig.state.gov/documents/organization/210403.pdf" target="_blank">May 2013 inspection report</a> notes that some budget numbers “are generally accurate, but others, such as canine screening and emergency reaction team program costs, are opaque to the mission because Washington controls them.”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">Still, someone must be able to get to the bottom of what all this is costing. </span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">This dramatic increase in canine security costs seems most likely to be due to the shift of certain costs from military operations to embassy operations, i.e., from the Defense Department to the State Department, though there may be other explanations for at least parts of the increase. One must hope that the State Department's Inspector General will examine this issue in the near future.<br /><br />An overall study that would be of considerable value, a subject for a Congressional committee or the GAO, would be to compare the costs that the military dropped and State picked up. Just because State took over functions from the Department of Defense does not mean that it is paying the same for those functions. If the military was using military personnel, then some of the dogs would have been Military Working Dogs, not Contract Working Dogs as the State Department primarily uses. It would be useful for appropriations committees to know whether the general shift to contractors and CWDs is cost-effective. There is reason for concern. Some of the WikiLeaks documents, <a href="http://doglawreporter.blogspot.com/2011/09/wikidogs-canines-in-leaked-us.html" target="_blank">discussed here almost two years ago</a>, indicated that State Department officials were often ignorant of canine functions and procedures. <br /><br />The military <a href="http://www.propublica.org/article/civilian-contractor-toll-in-iraq-and-afghanistan-ignored-by-pentagon-1009" target="_blank">has been said to prefer</a> to have deaths from IEDs not listed among military casualties in places like Iraq, so an overall study should also verify whether cost savings (if such there are) are being accompanied by any reduction in casualties.<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-size: small;"> </span></span><br /><br /><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-size: small;">This blog was written by John Ensminger and L.E. Papet. The authors thank Dennis Civiello and Eric Krieger for suggestions. </span></span></div>Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12665938105899033120noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2718580891048037671.post-67386938362631042852013-07-24T02:56:00.000-07:002014-02-22T13:30:29.977-08:00NY Court Approves Use of Therapy Dog during Testimony of 15-Year Old Abused by Her Father<span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; font-size: 11.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">An appellate decision handed down on July 10 puts New York in the column of states that allow trained dogs to accompany vulnerable witnesses during testimony.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The case involved a 15-year old girl testifying against her father, who had abused her for four years.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I have added a description of the case to a <a href="http://www.animallaw.info/articles/arusensmingerfacilitydog2012.htm" target="_blank">running article posted on the website of Michigan State University’s Animal Legal and Historical Center</a> (see Part II for discussion of <i>Tohom</i>).<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></span>Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12665938105899033120noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2718580891048037671.post-24437598670075565892013-07-22T03:04:00.000-07:002014-02-22T13:30:30.022-08:00Breeding Sled Dogs to Support Mushing Hobby is a Business, so Homeowner’s Policy Does Not Cover Bite <div class="MsoNormal">Paul Hougas, an aficionado of mushing for ten years, had three adult Siberian huskies, a male and two females.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>In addition to using the dogs for his passion, he sold puppies from their litters.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The puppies were advertised in the Chicago Sun Times at $450 each, though lower prices were always reached with buyers.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">Hougas apparently did not regard the mushing, or the breeding of his dogs, as a business.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>According to the Illinois appellate court, he “never claimed business losses on his tax return as a result of his mushing activities. He also never wrote off any business expenses or depreciated equipment in connection with his mushing.”</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">Jocelyn Davis came to the Hougas’ home looking for a puppy to purchase.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>At the time of her visit, Hougas had 13 puppies for sale from two litters.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Each female husky had a litter, both fathered by the male.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>While looking at the puppies, Davis was bitten by the adult male dog. She filed suit against Paul and Lana Hougas under the Illinois Animal Control Act to recover damages for the dog bite.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">Hougas sought indemnification under the homeowner’s policy he and his wife had with Allstate.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>That policy contained a business activities exclusion stating: “We do not cover bodily injury or property damage arising out of the past or present business activities of an insured person.”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>A business was defined as “any full or part-time activity of any kind engaged in for economic gain including the use of any part of any premises for such purposes.” </div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">The trial court granted summary judgment to Allstate, finding that the exclusion applied. Davis appealed, presumably because she could not expect to recover significant damages from the Hougases alone.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal"><b>Appellate Decision</b></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />The Illinois Appellate Court, 3d District, noted that in determining whether a business activities exclusion applies in a dispute, Illinois courts apply a two-part test:<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: .25in;"><ol><li>Was the activity regular and continuous?</li><li>Did the activity provide at least some portion of the insured’s livelihood?</li></ol></div><div class="MsoNormal"></div><div class="MsoNormal"><i>Allstate Insurance Co. v. Mathis</i>, 302 Ill.App.3d 1027, 706 N.E.2d 893 (1999).<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Davis argued that there were questions of fact precluding summary judgment in her case, so the appellate court summarized the facts:</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">“Paul had been involved in mushing for at least 10 years. He kept the adult dogs in separate kennels, and had to put them together for the purpose of mating. Both female dogs had other litters previously, and the puppies had been advertised for sale in the Chicago Sun Times. He had sold or given away all of the puppies, and at least 10 puppies had been sold, for a maximum of $400.”</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">Davis argued that Hougas was motivated by a cost recovery motive rather than a profit motive, essentially that he was breeding the dogs to cover some of the costs of the expensive mushing hobby.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The trial court had concluded that there was a profit motive, and the appellate court agreed, saying that “there was no evidence to support any other conclusion… There was no evidence that Paul Hougas ever kept any of the puppies, or that the puppies were necessary for some purpose related to mushing.”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">The appellate court said that the trail court had been correct in finding that there was no genuine issue of material fact and affirmed the trial court’s grant of summary judgment.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal"><b>Conclusion</b></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />It is quite likely that Paul Hougas did not see his activity as a business, but the case is correctly decided.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It was, in fact, a business, even though mushing was undoubtedly a hobby, probably a somewhat expensive one if Hougas traveled very far to use the dogs.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><br /><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"><br /></span><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">Had the bite occurred when there were no puppies in the house, and no advertisements in the Chicago Sun Times, the issue of the breeding business might never have come up. Since the mushing was a hobby and not a business engaged in for profit, and presumably provided no portion of Hougas's livelihood, it would have been more difficult for Allstate to deny coverage because of a business exclusion. </span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">People trying to fly under the radar of tax and licensing authorities in maintaining small-scale breeding operations should take note of this case.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The reason for the business exclusion in a homeowner’s policy is that the insurance company expects someone running a business, even a small-scale one like this, to have separate insurance coverage for that activity.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Of course, paying for business insurance may make the activity more visible to other authorities, meaning that the business may be subject to business taxes and licensing fees that would make it even less profitable. Still, for individuals who are not judgment-proof, getting the insurance may be economically wise in the long run.</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal"><i>Allstate Insurance Co. v. Davis</i>, 2013 Ill.App.3d 120646-U, 2013 WL 3154966 (Ct.App. 2013)</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">A dispute on whether to euthanize a sled dog is presently taking place in Alaska.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>A girl visiting the sled dog farm of Jake Berkowitz was attacked by a dog, Wizard, that broke loose from his chain.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>A Mat-Su Borough Commission deadlocked in June over <a href="http://www.adn.com/2013/06/20/2947082/death-penalty-hearing-for-sled.html" target="_blank">Wizard’s fate</a>.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Berkowitz is a well-known Iditarod sledder.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Thanks to Eric Krieger for telling me about this case.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></div>Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12665938105899033120noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2718580891048037671.post-24358361270421409292013-07-08T03:37:00.000-07:002014-02-22T13:30:30.069-08:00Obama Administration Declares Gray Wolves No Longer Endangered Except for 75 Mexican Wolves in Arizona and New Mexico <div class="MsoNormal"><b>Additional Note</b>: The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service announced an extension of the comment period on these proposals as well as setting three public hearings where verbal comments will be received. The time period and the dates and locations of the hearings are listed in a <a href="http://doglawreporter.blogspot.com/2013/09/fish-wildlife-announces-public-hearings.html" target="_blank">blog posted here on September 5</a>. On October 2, Fish and Wildlife <a href="http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2013-10-02/pdf/2013-24104.pdf" target="_blank">announced</a> that an additional hearing will take place in Denver on October 17. <br /><br />The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service wants to get out of the wolf preservation business altogether.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It will accept a very limited responsibility for a remnant of 75 Mexican wolves, a subspecies of gray wolf, struggling to survive in the forests between New Mexico and Arizona. The agency handicaps its odds even there by saying that the task is hopeless so nothing should be expected by anyone, least of all the wolves. (The announcement of the proposed change consists of 80 pages in the Federal Register: <a href="http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2013-06-13/pdf/2013-13982.pdf" target="_blank">78 Fed. Reg. 35664, June 13, 2013</a>.) <br /><br /><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">Sadly, it appears that President Obama believes that the Endangered Species Act is being respected. Celebrating the <span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; font-size: 11.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">160<sup>th</sup></span> anniversary of the Department of the Interior, on March 3, 2009, the President was quoted as saying: "For more than three decades, the Endangered Species Act has successfully protected our nation's most threatened wildlife, and we should be looking for ways to improve it, not weaken it." He claimed that the Act had been "undermined by past administrations," a comment that drew applause, according to<a href="http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/mar2009/2009-03-03-094.asp" target="_blank"> news reports</a>. </span><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">If the current proposal is enacted, it has to be said that President Obama is doing more to destroy the goals of the Endangered Species Act with regard to gray wolves than <i>any</i> of his predecessors. </span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">The logic behind taking wolves off the endangered list in 42 other states is based on the following arguments:</div><div class="MsoNormal"></div><div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpFirst" style="mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -.25in;"><ol><li><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;"><span style="font: 7.0pt "Times New Roman";"> </span></span></span>Wolves in the Eastern U.S. are protected as <i>Canis lupus</i>, but most of them are really <i>Canis lycaon </i>or<i> Canis rufus</i>, separate species, and since <i>Canis lupus</i> was not in this area in the distant past, it not does need to be protected there.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Fish and Wildlife will “study” what to do about <i>Canis lycaon, </i>but at the moment will do nothing. (<i>Canis rufus</i> remains listed as endangered where found in the southeastern and mid-Atlantic U.S. as detailed at <a href="http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/pdfs/fr/fr32-4001.pdf" target="_blank">32 Fed. Reg. 4001, March 11, 1967</a>.)</li><li>Wolves, <i>Canis lupus</i>, are doing just fine in the Western Great Lakes Region and the Northern Rocky Mountains, so they do not need any more help from Fish and Wildlife, as the agency previously determined and as <a href="http://doglawreporter.blogspot.com/2012/01/wolves-of-western-great-lakes-no-longer.html" target="_blank">was discussed earlier here</a>.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Although already delisted in those areas, Fish and Wildlife believes that some of the wolves will move into other areas as populations stabilize.</li><li>Wolves in the Pacific Northwest are not doing well, but they are getting too close to urban centers, roads, agriculture, and people, so not much can be done because these areas have been “irreversibly modified for human use.”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Besides, there are plenty of wolves in Canada that can cross the border if they want to expand their range.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Canada, Fish and Wildlife points out, does an even worse job of trying to protect its wolves than the U.S. does, but the wolves are for the most part not endangered in Canada despite being hunted and trapped for pelts and killed for the sport of it.</li><li>Wolves everywhere else in the western U.S. are doing well enough under the “best available scientific and commercial information” that they can be forgotten. It is not so much that there is evidence they will survive but rather that there is “no substantial evidence” that they will not.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></li></ol></div><div class="MsoNormal"></div><div class="MsoNormal">Not stated, but I suspect a major argument in deliberations inside the Department of the Interior, is the fact that forgetting about wolves will be a budget savings at a time when the Obama administration wants to concentrate resources elsewhere. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal"><b>Current Status of Wolves as Endangered and Threatened Wildlife</b></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">To see how massive this proposed change will be for wolves, take a moment to look at the following map of the U.S. showing in dark gray the current area of the U.S. where wolves are listed as endangered.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Only along the northern border of our country are they deemed to be recovered.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The cross-hatched areas in Arizona and New Mexico will, if the proposed rules are finalized, be the only place where Fish and Wildlife will continue to provide even nominal protection.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; margin-left: 1em; text-align: right;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhXZLx0LRJwIPEaRBQmDihcKq7S2m0docnU65CKm_dHi0PJzUp0awfiraQwJGIyw33gzrmyrsmpmzBHa1k9sDjR3PwSPjsCL0yjB8XiwQja-eWXzIQLI32ehiZSoCP9pRD8Z5NkaXYOgY0/s1600/Grey+Wolf+Endangered+Species+Act+Status+2012.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="428" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhXZLx0LRJwIPEaRBQmDihcKq7S2m0docnU65CKm_dHi0PJzUp0awfiraQwJGIyw33gzrmyrsmpmzBHa1k9sDjR3PwSPjsCL0yjB8XiwQja-eWXzIQLI32ehiZSoCP9pRD8Z5NkaXYOgY0/s640/Grey+Wolf+Endangered+Species+Act+Status+2012.jpg" width="640" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Current Gray Wolf Endangered Species Act Status</td></tr></tbody></table></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /><b>Eastern Wolf (<i>Canis lycaon</i>)</b><br /><br />In 2011, Fish and Wildlife proposed delisting gray wolves in 29 states in the eastern U.S., as discussed in a <a href="http://doglawreporter.blogspot.com/2011/05/wolves-may-lose-federal-protection-in.html" target="_blank">prior blog</a>. That proposal was not finalized and is now replaced by a proposal to delist gray wolves in 42 states. In 2011, the agency said it would be looking at the status of the other wolf species or subspecies in those states, but as has been true for most of the Obama administration, the agency’s focus continues to be on what it no longer needs to do, rather than on what it <i>should</i> do for wolves.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>So rather than determining whether protection is needed for <i>Canis lycaon</i> (called eastern wolves or eastern timber wolves in the 2011 release), the agency uses historical range as an excuse to withdraw protection from gray wolves where it has now determined that they are only interlopers.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Of course, there is little concern about protecting hybrid groups in areas between the different types of wolves which Fish and Wildlife labels “ambiguous zones of admixture.”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal"><i>Canis lycaon</i> was listed as endangered in 1967 but that was removed when it was declared not to be a separate species but a subspecies of gray wolf in 1978 (43 Fed. Reg. 9607, March 9, 1978). Although not disturbing its prior determination of <i>Canis rufus</i> as endangered, the renewed species status for <i>Canis lycaon</i> does not revive its prior endangered status.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Fish and Wildlife states that “we are not prepared to make a determination on the conservation status of <i>C. lycaon</i> throughout its range in the United States and Canada at this time.” (I hope that I am wrong that Fish and Wildlife is ignoring its responsibilities and that within a couple of weeks there will be more about eastern wolves in the Federal Register, but until I see such a release I am not prepared to eat any words.) </div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal"><b>Mexican Wolf Protection </b></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal"><table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left; margin-right: 1em; text-align: left;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh1nz_8Fg6SAitum_HLn3_YT1_vZFFC12oGahEX63O1Ke-hypiMebztqdr4JymKRptQziwamFPuhIF6XfHlBYtKXbK-OrwkwKj68Leud4tWizxR4ob3bBd4l8HrLzWox5Rs8uzZlH-E7zU/s1600/USFWS+Photo+of+Mexican+Wolf.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="434" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh1nz_8Fg6SAitum_HLn3_YT1_vZFFC12oGahEX63O1Ke-hypiMebztqdr4JymKRptQziwamFPuhIF6XfHlBYtKXbK-OrwkwKj68Leud4tWizxR4ob3bBd4l8HrLzWox5Rs8uzZlH-E7zU/s640/USFWS+Photo+of+Mexican+Wolf.jpg" width="640" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">USFWS Photo of Mexican Wolf</td></tr></tbody></table>The Mexican wolf, a subspecies of the gray wolf referred to throughout the June release as <i>Canis lupus baileyi</i>, is the only winner, if it can be called that, in Fish and Wildlife’s June 2013 pronouncement.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The agency had no choice but to conclude that the subspecies “continues to warrant endangered status.”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>In summarizing scientific studies, the pronouncement notes that this subspecies “may represent the last surviving remnant of the initial wave of gray wolf migration into North America.”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Scientists have argued for that gray wolves crossed in at least three waves from Eurasia into Alaska during the Pleistocene.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>(Dogs came over the same way with humans, and here also there are interesting questions about how many times it happened, and the extent of reverse migrations.) <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">The degree of danger to the Mexican wolf is considerable. According to Fish and Wildlife:</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">“A single gray wolf population (<i>C.l. baileyi</i>), of at least 75 wolves (as of December 31, 2012) inhabits the southwestern United States today in central Arizona and New Mexico.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>In Mexico, efforts to reestablish a wild population … began in 2011.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Of eight wolves released between October 2011 and October 2012, two wolves are “fate unknown,” four are confirmed dead, and two are alive as of January 2, 2013 …. In addition, a captive population of 240 to 300 <i>C.l. baileyi</i> exists in the United States and Mexico today in about 50 captive breeding facilities.”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">This represents something of an improvement since, in 1976, no wild Mexican wolf populations were known to remain in the U.S. or Mexico. A few were thought to live in the Sierra Madres.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Fish and Wildlife began introducing captive-born <i>C.l. baileyi</i> to the wild in 1998. Some are found on the Fort Apache and White Mountain Apache lands of Arizona and New Mexico.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The agency is hoping to get the population up to 100 and has posted a detailed <a href="http://www.fws.gov/southwest/docs/41948WollfConservationAssessment4-2010.pdf" target="_blank">Mexican Wolf Conservation Assessment</a>. </div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">The subspecies inhabits pine-oak woodlands in Arizona and New Mexico, as well as mixed-conifer forests in the Rocky Mountains.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>They can feed on mule deer and white-tailed deer but show a strong preference for elk when available.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Fires have been a major threat, as have trapping and other hunting (mostly illegal), disease, and road kills by vehicles (the latter accounting for about 15% of deaths).<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Fortunately, according at least to Fish and Wildlife, “public polling data in Arizona and New Mexico shows that most respondents have positive feelings about wolves and support the reintroduction of <i>C.l. baileyi</i>.”</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">Hybridization with dogs is a rare event, but Fish and Wildlife does not like it:</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">“Three confirmed hybridization events between <i>C. l. baileyi </i>and dogs have been documented since the reintroduction project began in 1998. In the first two cases, hybrid litters were humanely euthanized…. In the third case, four of five pups were humanely euthanized; the fifth pup, previously observed by project personnel but not captured, has not been located and its status is unknown…. No hybridization between <i>C. l. baileyi </i>and coyotes has been confirmed through ourgenetic monitoring of coyotes, wolves, and dogs that are captured in the wild.”</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">Fish and Wildlife also recognizes that inbreeding can be a problem with small populations and wolves in several lineages are not showing “reproductive fitness.”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>This is measured by “semen quality, sperm cell morphology and motility of sperm cells,” which in those lineages have deteriorated.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">As to its target population of 100 wild Mexican wolves, the agency acknowledges:</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">“At its current size of a minimum of 75 wolves, and even at the current population target of at least 100 wild wolves, the BRWRA [Blue Range Wolf Recovery Area] population is, by demographic measures, considered small …. and has a low probability of persistence. The viability of the population when it reaches its target of at least 100 wolves remains unquantified, although qualitatively this target is significantly below estimates of viability appearing in the scientific literature and gray wolf recovery plans, which suggest hundreds to over a thousand wolves are necessary for long-term persistence in the wild.”</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">In other words, don’t blame us if our reintroduction efforts fail and they don’t survive.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The recovery area of the Mexican wolf is shown in the following map from the most recent official Assessment.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Most wolves are inside the red boundary.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal"><table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; margin-left: 1em; text-align: right;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjfYrjK1EK_ylPisH47LNny_9gwYbSr-r-kVBCG5u03ZfmhJ-7gHY1JEidJtvMeM9xYoQ2fl6DhMe9xi8szH6_5KuVR3xabYrNWfz9N50yBw0UrDVcLxIYyfmI3H22dfEIikCny3a8Elms/s1600/Mexican+Wolf+Recovery+Area.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="303" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjfYrjK1EK_ylPisH47LNny_9gwYbSr-r-kVBCG5u03ZfmhJ-7gHY1JEidJtvMeM9xYoQ2fl6DhMe9xi8szH6_5KuVR3xabYrNWfz9N50yBw0UrDVcLxIYyfmI3H22dfEIikCny3a8Elms/s400/Mexican+Wolf+Recovery+Area.jpg" width="400" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Mexican Wolf Recovery Area</td></tr></tbody></table></div><div class="MsoNormal">It is worth noting that the total number of red wolves in the Southeastern U.S. is not much more than that of Mexican wolves in the Southwest, somewhere between 90 and 110 according to the latest <a href="http://www.fws.gov/redwolf/Images/20130416_RedWolf_QtrReport_FY13-02.pdf" target="_blank">Recovery Program update</a>.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>There are additionally about 200 red wolves in captivity, some of which are breeding for reintroduction into what is left of their natural habitat.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal"><b>Conclusion </b></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">My wife and I were driving north on I-87 from New York City a few days ago when just past Newburgh we saw a turtle on the freeway in front of us.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>People were slowing down, some honking to alert those behind them. The turtle had somehow made it across three lanes with only half a lane to go.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>We could see it pulling forward with its small legs as I passed over it.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The car behind me also carefully straddled the animal, but the next one, with a driver swerving left and right to express his annoyance at the delay before him, hit and crushed it.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The poor little animal never had much of a chance but it depressed us that it had come so close to crossing such a wide and perilous obstacle course.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Five or so cars more and it would have been on the shoulder.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">That is much the fate of wolves.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It is not the intentional slaughter that is the biggest enemy any more.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It is indifference, ignorance, isolation from nature, intolerance of needs other than our own, and worst of all progress—more roads, more developments, more strip malls, more and more people—that is dooming those elements of wildness still left within our reach.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>As to the Government, indifference comes from budgetary constraints, bureaucratic double-speak, insisting that hybrids do not count, fear of rules too burdensome for ranchers and hunters and hence voters, inability to manage public expectations about preserves, administrative triaging of nature, failure to think like Teddy Roosevelt once did, all in all playing God as that glorious President said we could not afford to do any more.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The wolves may survive for a time, but with the attitude of the Fish and Wildlife Service, we will wake up one day and the ancestors of our dogs will be gone from the United States.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Then we will have to hope that Canada does not remain indifferent.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><br /><br /><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">Thanks to Kingsbury Parker, L.E. Papet, Yva Momatiuk, Ronald Keats, and Suzanne Boule for comments and corrections. </span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal"><b>ADDITIONAL RESOURCES AND NOTES</b></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">For a draft of a comment that can be submitted on the proposed delisting or sent to Secretary of the Interior Sally Jewell, go the <a href="https://secure.defenders.org/site/Advocacy?cmd=display&page=UserAction&id=2599" target="_blank">website of Defenders of Wildlife</a>.<span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> For letters already sent to the Obama administration on the proposal, see the website of <a href="https://www.commondreams.org/newswire/2013/05/21-8" target="_blank">Common Dreams</a>. </span>A copy of the complaint filed in February by The Humane Society of the United States, Born Free USA, Help Our Wolves Live, and Friends of Animals and Their Environment to stop the earlier Great Lakes delisting proposal is posted on the <a href="http://www.fws.gov/midwest/wolf/delisting/pdf/WGL_HSUSCompl.pdf" target="_blank">USFWS website</a>.</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />In response to an earlier draft of this blog, Kingsbury Parker sent some trenchant observations concerning what is happening in Washington State that I think are worth quoting in full:</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">“Washington State has both strong wolf support groups of Democrats west of the mountains and strong anti-wolf sentiment in Republicans east of the mountains. Delisting will certainly result in a decline for wolf populations that are in conflict with the ranchers who have been complaining for years now. The large portions of land devoted to agriculture should not be affected. There is also a substantial area of forest in the northeast which is nearly unpopulated by humans that may provide some refuge for wolves. Unfortunately, cattle ranchers here, in general, are not interested in being educated as to the positive effects of wolves on the entire ecosystem nor do they want to know how ranchers in the northeast and Great Lakes states have been coping with increased wolf populations. I do not think that there will be much increase in the destruction of habitat in eastern Washington State during the next 25 years as the land there is mostly devoted to farming of some sort. With increased global warming these northern lands may become more popular however. On the bright side, so to speak, is the fact that eastern Washington has a nasty climate to begin with as it is hot in the summer and cold in the winter. This summer they are seeing 120 degrees F in many locations so that will help stifle population growth as global warming picks up steam. Habitat destruction may also effect human population growth such that some kind of balance in achieved but many species are going to be lost no matter what we do as this glacial epoch is coming to a close and ice will cease to exist in several thousand years.”<br /><br />L.E. Papet forwarded the following studies worthy of consideration by anyone looking to understand the idiocy of Fish and Wildlife's policy from a scientific perspective: <br /><br />Esenberg, Cristina, Seager, S. Trent, and Hibbs, David E. (2013). Wolf, Elk, and Aspen Food Web Relationships: Context and Complexity. <i>Forest Ecology and Management</i>, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2013.01.014.<br /><br />Raikkonen, Jannikke, Vucetich, John A., Vucetich, Leah M., Peterson, Rolf O., and Nelson, Michael P. (2013). What the Inbred Scandinavian Wolf Population Tells Us about the Nature of Conservation. <i>PLOS/One, 8(6)</i>, e67218. These authors note that "the high rate of congenital anomalies that Scandinavian wolves suffer is a manifestation of poor population health that would be mitigated by larger population size and increased immigration, insomuch as they would mitigate the genetic deterioration that is almost certainly the cause of many of these anomalies. For this reason, instituting a public harvest of wolves designed to limit abundance at this time is almost certainly inconsistent with the conservation goal of a healthy wolf population, insomuch as limiting abundance would exacerbate genetic deterioration, at least until the time when rates of natural immigration are great enough to support the population’s genetic health and the conservation status is favourable." Unfortunately, this is precisely the sort of logic that Fish and Wildlife should be employing, but quite evidently fails to understand. <br /><br />Ripple, William J., Wirsing, Aaron J., Wilmers, Christopher C., and Letric, Mike (2013). Widespread Mesopredator Effects after Wolf Extirpation. <i>Biological Conservation, 160</i>, 70-79 (finding that the loss of an apex predator, the wolf is contributing to the potential extinction of other vertebrate species in parts of the American west). <br /><br />Yule, Jeffrey V., Fournier, Robert J., and Hindmarsh, Patrick L. (2013). Biodiversity, Extinction, and Humanity's Future: The Ecological and Evolurtionary Consequences of Human Population and Resource Use. <i>Humanities, 2013(2)</i>, 147-159; doi:10.3390/h2020147 ("Desiring more game species, for instance, humans typically hunt predators .... Yet removing or adding predators has far reaching effects. Wolf removal has led to prey overpopulation, plant over browsing, and erosion. After wolves were removed from Yellowstone National Park, the K [number of members of a species supported by an area without deterioration of the area's ability to support the species in the future] of elk increased. This allowed for a shift in elk feeding patterns that left fewer trees alongside rivers, thus leaving less food for beaver and, consequently, fewer beaver dams and less wetland....").</div>Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12665938105899033120noreply@blogger.com0