Fraudulent Use of Canines in Police Work

Fraudulent Use of Canines in Police Work

Daniel A. Smith Lincoln Park Police Department

School of Police Staff and Command Skip Lawver – Eastern Michigan University

Fraudulent Canine Use ii

Fraudulent Use of K-9s In Law Enforcement

I. Abstract

Though the year’s police K-9 units have been formed in many venues, cancelled

and reformed at later dates. The first police dog programs in the U.S. were begun in

1907 by the South Orange, New Jersey and the New York City Police Departments.

These programs were disbanded in 1911. Detroit Police Department added police

dogs to their force in 1917 and disbanded in 1919. they began new K-9 units in 1928

and cancelled that program in 1941 (Cite #3 From Bibliography). These early era

programs were disbanded for a host of reasons. Basically, the dogs were improperly

trained. The modern era of police dog programs has shown a tremendous increase.

Currently, there are about 6,000 K-9 units employed by law enforcement agencies.

(local, state, federal). (Canine Legal Updates and Opinions—www.k9fleck.org April

17,2004). The rise and fall of these K-9 units (as stated) is primarily due to poor

training which leads to poor performance. Many legitimate police dog programs are

being criticized by administrators because of the proliferation of fraudulent trainers

and handlers claiming their dogs can do tasks that other dogs are incapable of

performing. Administrators often read or hear about the spectacular feats of a few

dogs and handlers. They then question their departments’ canine units often asking

“Why can’t our dogs do that?”

The focus of this paper will be detailing a few of these fraudulent handlers and

then showing (scientific studies) that prove these dogs and handlers cannot perform

these fantastic feats that other police dogs can’t.

Fraudulent Canine Use iii

Table of Contents

Abstract ………………………………………………………………….…………….…ii

Introduction …………………………………………………………….…..….….……..1

Trooper John Peterson …………………………………………………………………..3

STU-100 Scent Transfer Unit …………………………………………………..….……4

Anthrax Investigation …………………………………….………………….…………..5

Sandra Anderson …………………………….……………….………………………….7

Scott Peterson ……………………………..…………….……………………………..…9

Penny Bell ……………………………..……..…………………………………………10

Russell Ebersole………………………………………………………………………....12

Conclusion ………………………………..…………………………………………….14

Bibliography …………………………………...………………………………………..16

Appendices News Week – August 12, 2002 Hunt For The Anthrax Killer ………………………………………………………….20 Police Magazine – May 2001…………………………………………….……………..24 Scent Transfer Unit 100 ………………………………………………………….……26

Fraudulent Canine Use 1

Introduction

Much of the material in this paper is based on my experience. I have been a law

enforcement officer in Lincoln Park, Michigan for twenty years. I had the privilege of

being a police K-9 handler for eight of those. My partner (Kilo) was a German Shepard

imported from Germany and was trained for narcotic detection, tracking, aggression

control, building search, area search, evidence search, and obedience. I underwent my

training at K-9 Academy in Romulus, Michigan. My initial training was two-hundred and

fifty-six hours and after certification continued training eight hours a week for the

remainder of my canine career.

The information contained in this paper is also based on extensive training,

interviews, and personal experience with Terry and Diane Shoenbach. (Owners and

training directors of the K-9 Academy). Both Terry and Diane have been handling and

training police dogs for over 30 years.

The husband and wife team have trained, certified and put in service over 150

police canine teams for local and federal law enforcement agencies.

I have also done extensive review of magazines, books, and websites leading to

the conclusions detailed in this paper.

This paper will present case studies of police and civilian handled canine units

that have led to serious problems for law enforcement agencies and detail specific ways

that law enforcement can protect themselves from civil liability, false arrests, and loss or

reversals of court decisions.

I have studied, reviewed, and will detail the following real world cases:


1. Trooper John Preston (Pennsylvania State Police)

2. STU-100 Scent Transfer Unit

3. Anthrax Investigation

4. Sandra Anderson

5. Scott Peterson Murder Trial

6. Penny Bell (Bloodhound Handler)

7. Russell Ebersole (explosives dog trainer Alexandria, Virginia)


Trooper John Preston

John Preston had a tracking dog that he claimed could follow tracks that were six

months old through a busy city (Titusville, Florida). He also claimed his dog could match

scents of individuals from crime scene evidence. John Preston also lied (on the stand)

about his training. Preston was flown around the country and used in high profile cases

by law enforcement agencies all over the United States. Convictions of suspects were

based (at times) solely on evidence supposedly uncovered by Preston’s dog.

Preston was investigated by Geraldo Rivera (early 1980) in the ABC News

Magazine 20/20. Hugh Downs and Barbara Walters also reported on this. When John

Preston was exposed as a fraud, many of the cases he was involved in were appealed.

This led to embarrassment to the police agencies that used him, reversals of cases, and

cast doubt on all of the legitimate police dogs in the country. The above information was

gained from a videotape of the 20/20 news program. Terry Shoenbach shows this

investigative report to all of his police dog handlers. The conclusion that should be

reached from this case is that a dog handler should never testify to abilities of his dog that

cannot be provided in a court ordered test.


STU-100 Scent Transfer Unit

Cite 1-Medico Legal Investigation od Death, March 16 & March 17,

2000 Novi, Mi.

Cite 2-Phamphlet STU-100 (Tolhurst Big “T” Enterprises Inc.)

Cite 3-Law and Order “Tracking by Scent” November 1998 Bill Clede

The STU-100 is a small machine invented by Bill Tolhurst of the Niagara County

New York Sheriffs Department. This is a collection device that supposedly extracts scent

from any material and deposits this scent on sterile gauze pads. These scent pads are then

put in plastic baggies, sealed and frozen to be used later in identifying suspects. This

identification is accomplished by letting a Bloodhound sniff the pad and matching this

scent to a suspect. Law enforcement agencies all over the United States have purchased

and are attempting to use this useless machine. The cost of this machine is $895.00, not

including shipping and insurance (See Exhibit A) (See article from Police Magazine,

May 2001). This article claims that Bloodhounds can do things that no other breeds can

do and infers that the STU-100 (previously mentioned) works. All of this in a reputable

police magazine with no scientific (or otherwise) proof mentioned.

It is my opinion, based on my knowledge and experience that this machine does

not and cannot work. More proof will be detailed at the end of this paper.


Anthrax Investigation

The F.B.I. in its zeal and under tremendous pressure to solve the anthrax attacker

brought in trained Bloodhounds in an attempt to match scent lifted from the anthrax

tainted letters sent to Sen. Tom Daschle and Patrick Leahy. The letters the “scent” was

lifted from were decontaminated months prior to presentation to the Bloodhounds in the

belief that the dogs could match the scent to the suspected perpetrator. According to

Newsweek, the dogs were taken to a number of places showing no reaction (Newsweek

Magazine August 12, 2002). When the dogs were brought to the apartment building

where Dr. Steven Hatfill lived (main person of interest) the dogs “went crazy”. The dogs

were also taken to Hatfill’s girlfriend’s apartment and a Denny’s Restaurant (where Dr.

Hatfill had dinner the previous evening) with the same indications when they came near

his apartment building.

As a result of these dogs “going crazy” at these locations a search warrant was

issued for Dr. Hatfill’s apartment. The search warrant showed no evidence of wrongdoing

by Dr. Hatfill. *NOTE* Search warrants can only be issued on facts based or probable

cause. In order for a dog’s indication to provide probable cause, the dog must be proven

credible and reliable.

To my knowledge, there is no scientific evidence or other evidence that dogs are

capable of “matching scents”. The above, in my opinion, is nothing but “junk science”. It

has been ruled in the courts that forensic dentistry matching bite

marks on victims to a suspect is junk science and not admissible in a trial. This

circus with the Bloodhounds are, in my opinion, the same thing. As an aside, this

Newsweek article (on Page 24) states:


“Bloodhounds are the only dogs whose powers of smell are admissible in court”. This is

absolutely, completely false. Dr. Hatfill has never been charged, nor has any

incriminating evidence been found.


Sandra Anderson

Sandra Anderson of Midland, Michigan is the best example of law enforcement

agencies (local, state, and federal) using dog handlers to assist in criminal investigations

without proper and sufficient checking of the dog handler’s qualifications. (People

Magazine Nov. 17, 2003 Bones of Contention) (Akron Beacon Journal Sept. 14, 2003)

(Detroit Free Press March 12, 2004)

Sandra Anderson had a mixed Doberman named Eagle. Eagle was believed by

law enforcement agencies around the world as the best cadaver dog there ever was.

Anderson was used extensively by the F.B.I. to search for body parts in high profile

cases. She was also used in Panama, Bosnia, and the World Trade Center after the

terrorist attacks in 2001. Anderson was profiled on the television show “Unsolved

Mysteries” and Disney Studios was planning on doing a movie about her and her wonder

dog Eagle. The F.B.I. was so impressed by her that she taught death investigation classes

for law enforcement. According to Shoenbach, the F.B.I. was warned a number of times

that Anderson was a fraud and her dog could not do what she claimed.

In April of 2002, a law enforcement officer saw Anderson remove a bone from

her boot during a search in Oscoda, Michigan, and throw it on the ground. Anderson then

claimed Eagle found another bone. This led to an extensive investigation of Anderson

and concluded with a ten count indictment in August of 2003. Anderson was charged

with evidence tampering, obstruction of justice, and lying to investigators. The

indictment claimed that Anderson fixed evidence in a number of cases in Michigan and

Ohio. The charges said she not only planted bones in the search areas, but that she also

used her own body fluids to stain a hack saw blade, money, and pieces of cloth.


Anderson, facing 65 years in prison, pleaded guilty to five felonies before U.S District

Judge Denise Page Hood in March 2004.

Anderson’s sentence is unclear at this time. According to Schoenbach, he believes

she was sentenced to 4 years in prison. Shoenbach says, “This is one of the most injurious

cases for law enforcement he has seen in his 30+ years of training and handling police

dogs”. There are so many twists and turns to this case that it would fill a very thick book.

There are a number of cases Anderson was involved in that are undergoing appeals at this

time.


Scott Peterson

Scott Peterson has been charged with murdering his wife, Laci, and unborn son

Connor in California. Tracking dogs from the California Rescue Dog Association,

handled by civilians were brought in days after Laci’s disappearance. Scent matching was

used by the handlers to attempt to find Laci and trace her path leading from her house.

One dog handler claimed Laci was driven in a car for miles to the marina Scott Peterson

claimed he went fishing from. The handler testified that her dog tracked down the middle

of the road to the marina and then stared out at the water telling the handler that Laci was

out there. (National Enquirer Jan. 6, 2004 David Wright).

Terry Shoenbach said “This whole K-9 case of these dogs reference the Scott

Peterson case is outrageous, fraudulent, and in my opinion criminal. If I didn’t think

Peterson was guilty, I would call Mark Gerragos (Scott Peterson’s attorney) and offer to

discredit all of the so-called dog evidence against Peterson. These dog handlers’

testimonies are so incredible, that I would be, for the first time in my career, a witness for

the defense”.


Penny Bell

Another current dog handler is beginning to be questioned by law

enforcement is a woman named Penny Bell of Milwaukee, Wisconsin. Bell Handles and

trains a Bloodhound named Hoover Von Vacuum. Penny Bell has taken Hoover on

searches for about 5 years. She claims her dog can track a human scent more than two

months old. She even claims her dog has tracked a scent that was two years old. Bell has

claimed her dog has many finds in cases she has worked. She often shows up at scenes

(uninvited) and then claims she successfully tracked a scent, found people or found

important evidence. Penny and Hoover have been involved in a case to help two families

search for their missing sons in Minnesota. The two men are Chris Jenkins, a 21 year old

University of Minnesota student, and Josh Guimond, a student at St. John’s University in

Collegeville, Minnesota.

Bell volunteered her dog’s services after seeing reports on television about the

missing boys. She claimed her dog followed a scent to an entrance ramp to I 94 in

Minneapolis. This took place two months after the boys disappearance. According to this

article, there is a John Zantke (battalion chief with Milwaukee Fire Department) that has

told police to keep her away from search scenes. Zantke says she (Bell) shows up

uninvited and contaminates search sites.

Penny Bell has taken credit for Hoover finding a body in the Menomonee River

(Milwaukee, Wisconsin) in a 1998 case. According to Zantke, Bell did not find the body

and wasn’t even close when the body was recovered.


Terry Shoenbach stated he is familiar with Bell and her dog. He stated there is a

lot of controversy surrounding her claims. Shoenbach says that there is no way she can do

what she claims. “This case is very similar to all the other frauds running around from

scene to scene making outrageous claims of finds. This case is very similar to John

Preston, Sandra Anderson and the dogs and handlers involved in the Scott Peterson case.

These people are not certified by any legitimate canine associates, their claims are

unsubstantiated, all they want to see is their name in the paper and (in my opinion) are

out and out liars.”


Russell Ebersole

Russell Ebersole a dog trainer in Winchester, Virginia, owned a dog training

business known as “Detector Dogs Against Drugs and Explosives.” Ebersole was paid

$700,000 to train 23 explosive detection dogs for the Federal Government. Ebersole also

did business with the State Department and the Federal Reserve. He was arrested after

being indicted on 26 counts of fraud and falsely filing records. Ebersole was eventually

convicted and sentenced to 18 years in jail and ordered to repay $700,000 to the Federal

Government.

Russell Ebersole was discovered to be a fraud when someone in the government

decided to test the bomb dogs he trained. Ebersole’s dogs were guarding numerous

Federal buildings in and around Washington D.C. Five tests were conducted. Two of the

tests involved loading cars with 50 pounds of dynamite and other cars with 50 pounds of

plastic explosives. These cars were the driven through checkpoints of buildings

Ebersole’s dogs were guarding. None of the 23 dogs found the explosives.

The failure of the dogs to detect the explosives led to an investigation. The

investigation revealed that Ebersole faked the dog’s and handler’s certifications and lied

about the handler’s training.

All of the above detailed cases are only a fraction of the fraudulent activities

being perpetrated on law enforcement. I examined the scientific evidence available about

the abilities of tracking dogs and their ability to match scents from articles to the person

who touched the article. All of the scientific evidence is in agreement that dogs do not

have this ability.


The December 1991 Newsletter Issue from Cornell University (College of

Veterinary Medicine) concluded that “individual human odors are not detected by dogs.

And there is no general scent that dogs can match with individuals”.

(Health Issues Dec. 1991).

In the book “How to Train Dogs for Police Work” (Jay Rapp; Denlinger’s

Publishers, LTD; Fairfax, Virginia; Cp. 1979) the author detailed an extensive German

Police study that concluded, “It is absolutely absurd to give a dog an article to sniff which

belongs to the person he is to locate and expect him to use this scent to pick up the

person’s track”.

In Tazlitz’s article entitled “Does the Cold Nose Know? The Unscientific Myth of

the Dog Scent Lineup” the idea that dogs can sniff an article and match the scent to the

person it belongs to is absolutely a myth and has never been proven in any scientific

controlled study. Terry Shoenbach told me that he has a standing offer that he will pay a

dog trainer or handler $5,000.00 if they can prove their dog can match scents. The offer

has never been taken up by any trainer or handler in the country. Shoenbach contributes

this to the fact that it is scientifically impossible for a dog to do this and is nothing but a

desire for publicity, a desire for fame, and in my opinion, an outright lie.

A review of the North American Police Work Dog Association, The

International Police Work Dog Association, and the United Police Canine

Associations certifications/standards reveals no test relating to scent matching or scent

line-ups. If there are no tests relating to scent matching given by the three most credible

police dog associations in the country shows that this ability by dogs does not exist.


Conclusion

How can law enforcement agencies prevent all the problems associated with the

use of the fraudulent dog trainers and handlers? First and foremost check backgrounds,

ask for certification from a national police dog association and beware of claims that this

dog can do things other police dogs can’t. Be extremely careful of using civilian dog

handlers. A law enforcement agency has no administrative control over a civilian and

most civilians are not trained in evidence preservation or court testimony.

According to Terry and Diane Shoenbach, the training of explosive detection dogs

is expanding by leaps and bounds since 9-11. Terry Shoenbach said that he had some

requests from law enforcement agencies to train explosive detection dogs prior to the

terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center on September 11. “I used to tell the agencies

that there wasn’t a great need for bomb dogs, and their money could be better utilized

training a narcotics detection dog. I have since changed my mind and certified 10

explosives detection dogs in the past 2 years. I handle my own trained and certified bomb

dog for Van Buren Township Police Department now.”

According to the Shoenbach, the Russell Ebersole case is only the tip of the

iceberg concerning frauds training explosive detection dogs. The demand is so great that

law enforcement agencies are going to fall victim to fraudulent people if they do not

conduct extensive research and investigations before getting a bomb dog.

I handled and trained a narcotics/patrol dog for 9 years for Lincoln Park Police

Department. One of the biggest problems I saw were very short training periods for

police dogs. There are agencies that are giving only five weeks of training to handler and

dog and then putting them on the street.


Shoenbach lists some of the areas to be careful about when acquiring a bomb dog. “My

personal opinion (based on training and handling for over 30 years) is to be skeptical of

pre-trained dogs, short training times, food rewards for detection dogs, and lack of

continuous maintenance training for handler and dog.”.

If it sounds too good to be true—it probably is!


Bibliography

1. Dan Smith-Author/Personal Experience

2. Interview-Terry and Diana Shoenbach

3. Police Dogs in North America Samuel G. Chapman

Publisher: Charles C. Thomas Cp. 1990

4. Canine Legal Updates and Opinions

Terry Fleck: Website— www.K-9Fleck.org

5. Video Tape: 20/20 Newsmagazine

Circa 1980—Geraldo Rivera

Hugh Downs/Barbara Walters

ABC News Network

6. Medico legal Investigation of Death. March 16-17, 2000.

Pamphlet: at Novi, Michigan

7. Pamphlet: STU-100 (Tollhurst Big “T” Enterprises Inc)

8. Law and Order: Magazine

“Tracking by Scent”

Nov. 1998 Bill Clede

9. Police Magazine: May 2001

Al Valdez

“Classic Canines Capture Criminals”

10. Newsweek Magazine: August 12, 2002

“Hunt for the Anthrax Killer”

Mark Miller and Daniel Klaidman


11. People Magazine: November 17, 2003

“Bones of Contention”

Thomas Fields-Meyer

12. Akron Beacon Journal: September 14, 2003

Associated Press

13. Detroit Free Press: March 12, 2004

Jack Kresnak

14. National Enquirer: January 6, 2004

“Heroic Tracking Dogs Prove Scott Lied to Police”

David Wright

15. Health Issues: Cornell University

College of Veterinary Medicine

December 1991

“The Incredible Range, and Limitations, of the Sense of Smell.”

16. How to Train Dogs for Police Work

Jay Rapp; Denlinger’s Publications

LTD. Fairfax, Virginia

Copyright: 1979

17. Hastings Law Review 15.

“Does the Cold Nose Know? The Unscientific Myth of the Dog Scent Lineup”.

November 1990

Andrew E. Taslitz


18. North American Police Work Dog Association

Certification Requirements

www.NAPWSA.com

19. United States Police Canine Association


www.USPCA.com

20. International Police Work Dog Association


www.IPWDA.com

21. Star Tribune: January 5, 2003

“Bloodhound Handler’s Credentials Questioned in Search for Missing Men.”

Author: Randy Furst

22. AP Press Release March 20, 2003

“Man Accused in Bomb-Sniffing Dogs Case.”


Appendices

News Week – August 12, 2002 Hunt For The Anthrax Killer ……………………………………… …….20 Police Magazine – May 2001………………………………………………24 Scent Transfer Unit 100…………………………………………………..26


News Week - August 12, 2002





Police Magazine - May 2001



Scent Transfer – Unit 100


Documents

Fraudulent Use of Canines in Police Work