The case involves a drug detection dog by the name of Razor.  Razor's services were utilized when Matheson's car was stopped for a traffic infraction and Matheson refused to give consent to search.  Razor's handler, Deputy Greco, testified that he followed his normal routine by taking Razor to the driver's side door and quickly walking the dog around the car in a clockwise direction.  Razor did not alert on his first pass.  Maybe he was nervous.  Undeterred, Deputy Greco walked Razor around again, this time more slowly, allowing Razor to "linger at the seams."  This time, Razor "scratched and bit at the edge of the car's hatchback, which Deputy Greco recognized as Razor's alert behavior."

Cops searched and found drug paraphernalia, including syringes and spoons; and in the glove compartment they found hydrocodone tablets, morphine tablets, and methamphetamine.  Prior to Razor's sniff of Matheson's car, he had been certified to detect marijuana, cocaine, and heroin; and was subsequently certified to detect methamphetamine.

On cross, Deputy Greco admitted that he did not maintain a record of Razor's false alert rate and in fact often left the scene after an alert prior to learning whether drugs had been found.  The defense also presented testimony from Razor's trainer who admitted that Razor received no training to discourage him from alerting to "dead scents" which are residual odors of drugs that are no longer present in the car.

The defense also called an expert in animal behavior and veterinarian who critiqued the training procedures used by the cops to train Razor on six grounds:  inadequate training for searching vehicles, no training with small quantities of drugs, failure to plant novel odors during Razor's training searches, Razor was not subject to "controlled negative testing" where all objects or locations have no drugs present (the expert testified this training tests for false response rates and reveals whether the handler or dog is guessing; and the handler should not know whether drugs are present to prevent prompting the dog, even unintentionally), Razor was not given "extinction training" which discourages the dog from alerting to common items associated with drugs such as plastic bags, and there was no evidence that Razor's training included "stimulus generalization" which conditions a dog trained on one class of drugs to detect all drugs in that class.

The expert further criticized the certification of the United States Police Canine Association on the basis that it did not include controlled negative testing, limited the dog's search time to ten minutes (shorter than real world searches), required only a 70% proficiency which the expert deemed inadequate, analyzed the dog and handler as a team rather than focusing on the abilites of the dog, and Razor was not certified to detect meth.

The court held that the fact that the dog had been trained and certified, standing alone, does not provide sufficient probable cause to search; and contrasted Razor's training with the intense training of dogs used by the U.S. Customs Service which keeps records for only thirty or sixty days because the ability of the dog can change over time.

Excellent case to use and study that suggests the following area of cross-examination of the drug dog handler/trainer/expert witness:

1.  What specific drugs is the dog certified to detect?  What specific training has the dog received regarding these specific drugs?

2.  Is a record maintained of the dog's false alert rate?  Success rate?

3.  Does the handler stay at the scene and determine whether the dog alerted to the presence of contraband or whether it was a false alert?  How many times has this occurred?

4.  What are "dead scents"?  Has the dog been trained to detect "dead scents" (residual odors of drugs no longer present) and discouraged from alerting to them?

5.  Has the dog received specific training to search vehicles?

6.  Has the dog received specific training to detect varying amounts of drugs?

7.  Has the dog been subjected to controlled negative testing where no drugs are present during a search?  (Very important because it reveals the false response rate).

8.  Have novel or non-drug odors been planted during a search and a record maintained on the alerts of the dog, if any?

9.  During training searches, is the handler aware of the presence and location of drugs?  (to prevent the handler from consciously or unconsciously prompting the dog to alert).

10.  Has the dog been given "extinction training" to discourage alerting to common items used in packing drugs such as plastic or duct tape?

11.  Has the dog received training in "stimulus generalization" which conditions a dog trained in one class of drugs to detect all drugs in that class?

12.  Were there any restictions on the search time during training (ten minutes in the Matheson case)?

13.  What proficiency rate is acceptable or passing?  (in the case, the USPCA required only 70%).

14.  During the training/certification is the dog evaluated separate from the handler or are they evaluated as a team?  (puts into question the individual ability of the dog to detect drugs).

15.  Was the dog trained and certified to detect the specific drug in your case?

16.  Exactly how is the dog conditioned?  (is he positively rewarded with food or punished).  Is the conditioning administered consistently (or only when he alerts)?

17.  Exactly how does the dog alert?  (scratching?  barking?)  How was this metod determined?

18.  Ask the trainer/handler to admit that a dog's ability can change over time.  What time period?  (U.S. Customs maintains records for only 30 or 60 days because older records are no longer probative of the dog's skill).

19.  What steps are taken to determine if the dog has diminished ability during a given time period?

20.  Has the dog received any additional training since the certification or any regular training?  (U.S. Customs requires annual re-certification training).