UNIVERSITY OF THE DISTRICT OF - UDC Law Review

27 See Robert C. Bird, An Examination of the Training and Reliability of the Narcotics Detection Dog, 85 Ky. L.J. 405, 410-15
(1996) (addressing the training of these dogs by federal and state law enforcement agencies).
28 See, e.g., Am. Working Dog Ass’n, Certification Standards: Narcotic Detection Standards,
http://www.americanworkingdog.com/certification_ standards.htm#Narcotic_Detection Standards (last visited Apr. 27, 2010)
[hereinafter AWDA Certification] (displaying the certifications available for narcotics-detection dogs). The NNDDA’s Narcotic
Detection Standard includes, at a minimum, the detection of cocaine and marijuana, with the option of obtaining additional
certification for the detection of heroin, methamphetamines, and opium. See Nat’l Narcotic Detector Dog Ass’n, Narcotic
Detection Standards, http://www.nndda.org/official-docs/doc_download/2-narcotics-detection-standard (last visited Apr. 27, 2010)
[hereinafter NNDDA Certification]; see also USPCA Rulebook 2009, supra note 24, at 18.
29 For building searches under the AWDA standards, the canine must search the interior of a building consisting of no less than two
rooms and having at least one thousand square feet. AWDA Certification, supra note 28. The NNDDA tests detection dogs on their
ability to find two stashes of each narcotic hidden in a given area, which is “of [an] indoor nature (building)” that is “no larger than
one thousand ... square feet.” See NNDDA Certification, supra note 28. The USPCA uses slightly different certification
requirements. The location of the canine testing is limited to a vehicle and indoor, interior rooms. See USPCA Rulebook 2009,
supra note 24, at 18. For the indoor test, the canine must search three furnished rooms, each measuring a minimum of two hundred
square feet. Id.
30 See generally supra notes 24, 28-29 (discussing certification standards for various private vendors).
31 For example, even fundamental issues remain unresolved within the industry, such as whether detection dogs should be trained and
certified using street drugs or, instead, “pseudo-controlled substances,” which are “legal chemicals with the same smell as illegal
narcotics.” See United States v. Broadway, 580 F. Supp. 2d 1179, 1192 (D. Colo. 2008) (defining pseudoscents). Although the use
of pseudoscents may be preferable because they prevent the detection dog from becoming distracted by cutting agents routinely
found in street drugs, most certifying agencies tout the fact that they train and certify detection dogs using only “real” drugs.
Compare Jessica Snyder Sachs, The Fake Smell of Death, Discover, Mar. 1996, at 89, available at http://
discovermagazine.com/1996/mar/thefakesmellofde714 (interviewing sensory biologist Dr. Larry Myers at Auburn University)
(“Myers tells of a narcotics officer who had trained his dog on drugs kept in plastic storage bags. ‘I’ll be damned if that dog didn’t
start alerting to the scent of Ziploc bags,’ says Myers. A dog trained on street drugs can likewise get distracted by cutting agents,
homing in on baking powder in the fridge and ignoring uncut cocaine in the pantry.”), with S. Hills Kennels, Inc., Drug Detection
Dogs, http:// www.southernhillskennels.com/drug-dogs (last visited Apr. 29, 2010) (private vendor advertising that it “only use[s]
real drugs, not pseudo drug scents”), and Nat’l Law Enforcement Canine Org., Certification Standards: Narcotics,
http://www.nleco.org/cert_narc.html (last visited Apr. 29, 2010) (stating that no pseudodrugs are used for certification).
32 Nat’l Inst. of Justice, U.S. Dep’t of Justice, Guide for the Selection of Drug Detectors for Law Enforcement Applications: NIJ
Guide 601-00, at 21-23 (2000) [hereinafter Selection of Drug Detectors]. The report defines a “trace drug detection system” as
“any drug detection system that detects drugs by collecting and identifying traces from the material [which] may be in the form of
either vapor or particulate.” Id. at 50.
33 See, e.g., Fitzgerald v. State, 837 A.2d 989 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 2003), aff’d, 864 A.2d 1006 (Md. 2004).
34 See generally Gary S. Settles, Sniffers: Fluid-Dynamic Sampling for Olfactory Trace Detection in Nature and Homeland Security--
The 2004 Freeman Scholar Lecture, 127 J. Fluids Engineering 189 (2005) [hereinafter Sniffers]. Dogs may not be detecting drug
molecules, “but rather one or more other chemicals that are contaminants in the [drug] and that have considerably high vapor
pressures.” See also Selection of Drug Detectors, supra note 32, at 21.
35 A canine may not be able to detect drugs “manufactured in ultrapure form.” Selection of Drug Detectors, supra note 32, at 21.
Some drugs, such as heroin, are extremely difficult, if not impossible, to detect from their vapor when conducting a trace detection
search at room temperature and normal atmospheric pressure because the vapor concentration at room temperature is exceptionally
low: one part per trillion. Id. at 43.
153