K9 Test 5/10

Front 1

Self preservation

Back 1

Behavior associated with the survival of the individual dog

Hint 1

Instinct

Front 2

Species preservation

Back 2

Behavior associated with the survival and reproduction of the species

Hint 2

Instinct

Front 3

Genetic behavior

Back 3

Determined by the dog's genes, born into the dog. A dog's potential is limited by his genetic makeup

Hint 3

Behavior

Front 4

Environmental behavior

Back 4

Behavior that is learned through environmental conditioning

Hint 4

Behavior

Front 5

Drive

Back 5

Subconscious impulses to react to stimuli. Genetic. Can be enhanced or diminished through training, but never created or eliminated. A dog will revert to his drives, not training, when placed under stress

Hint 5

Drive

Front 6

Indication

Back 6

A trained behavior that pinpoints source

Hint 6

Indication

Front 7

Courage

Back 7

Absence of fear towards objects or in situations

Hint 7

Traits

Front 8

Confidence

Back 8

Environmentally conditioned acceptance of safety

Hint 8

Trait

Front 9

Frustation

Back 9

Tendency to subconsciously react aggressively when restrained from stimuli

Hint 9

Trait

Front 10

Sharpness

Back 10

Tendency to react aggressively toward stimuli

Hint 10

Trait

Front 11

Hardness

Back 11

Resiliency towards unpleasant experiences

Hint 11

Trait

Front 12

Softness

Back 12

Remembering unpleasant experiences

Hint 12

Trait

Front 13

Temperament

Back 13

Attitude towards life

Hint 13

Trait

Front 14

Sensory threshold

Back 14

Amount of stimuli required to engage a drive. May be high or low for each drive.

Hint 14

Trait

Front 15

Guard

Back 15

Drive to defend territorial space from intruders

Hint 15

Drive

Front 16

Protection

Back 16

Drive to defend pack members

Hint 16

Drive

Front 17

Hunt

Back 17

Drive to pursue out of sight stimuli

Hint 17

Drive

Front 18

Prey

Back 18

Drive to pursue visual stimuli

Hint 18

Drive

Front 19

Trainability

Back 19

Drive to follow desires of pack leader

Hint 19

Drive

Front 20

Retrieve

Back 20

Drive to bring prey to the pack

Hint 20

Drive

Front 21

Air scent

Back 21

Drive to follow wind born odors

Hint 21

Drive

Front 22

Tracking

Back 22

Drive to follow ground disturbance odors

Hint 22

Drive

Front 23

Rank

Back 23

Drive to achieve higher rank in the pack

Hint 23

Drive

Front 24

Fight

Back 24

Drive to measure physical prowess with rivals

Hint 24

Drive

Front 25

Survival flight

Back 25

Drive to flee from real or imagined danger

Hint 25

Drive

Front 26

Survival self defense

Back 26

Drive to attack real or imagined danger

Hint 26

Drive

Front 27

Play

Back 27

Drive for physical contact with pack members

Hint 27

Drive

Front 28

Pack

Back 28

Drive for emotional contact with pack members

Hint 28

Drive

Front 29

Activity

Back 29

Drive to move and act

Hint 29

Drive

Front 30

Herding

Back 30

Drive to circle and direct prey

Hint 30

Drive

Front 31

Homing

Back 31

Drive to return to the pack or territory

Hint 31

Drive

Front 32

Pointing

Back 32

Drive to passively indicate prey

Hint 32

Drive

Front 33

Drafting

Back 33

Drive to pull when restricted

Hint 33

Drive

Front 34

Alert

Back 34

A change in body posture and increased respiration when the dog first encounters the odors he has been trained to detect

Front 35

Control

Back 35

Canine's responsiveness to verbal commands and presentations during the search

Front 36

Reading

Back 36

The handler recognizes the canine's alert behavior and responds accordingly

Front 37

Fringe indication

Back 37

The canine prematurely indicates while following odor

Front 38

False indication

Back 38

The canine displayed a change in behavior that the handler interpreted as an alert and indication in a controlled training environment where it had been previously established that no trained odors were present

Front 39

Non productive alert

Back 39

The canine displayed an alert in an uncontrolled field environment where no tangible trained substances could be located

Front 40

Threshold problem

Back 40

The canine walks odor that is not at a quantity previously experienced

Front 41

Walking odor

Back 41

The canine alerts and walks away

Front 42

HARP

Back 42

Hunt

Air scent

Retrieve

Prey

Front 43

Pre Search

Back 43

Checking for hazards

Checking for obstacles

Checking for wind currents

Establishing a search pattern

Front 44

Conflict training

Back 44

Constantly changing training so that the canine does not become patterned into an incorrect response

Front 45

Modular training

Back 45

Short, simple lessons which work on one facet of a finished product.

Front 46

Anthropomorphism

Back 46

The attribution of human form or behavior to an animal.

Front 47

Scent

Back 47

Gaseous, particulate and aerosol matter emitting from a substance.

Front 48

Source

Back 48

The strongest concentration of trained odor available.

Front 49

Tracing

Back 49

Post-alert behavior displayed by the canine while following the odor to source.

Front 50

Intent

Back 50

A canine's ability and desire to systematically hunt for a trained odor.

Front 51

Passive indication

Back 51

Sit, down, point

Front 52

Aggressive indication

Back 52

Scratch, bite

Front 53

What two things are never conflicting training

Back 53

Trained odor

Correct handling skills

Front 54

List 3 things affect the movement of scent

Back 54

Wind currents

Relative temperatures

Obstacles

Front 55

List drives that illicit an aggressive response

Back 55

Fight

Prey

Survival

Rank

Guard

Protection

Front 56

Florida vs. Jardines

Back 56

Florida v. Jardines, 569 U.S. ___ (2013), is a decision by the United States Supreme Court which held that police use of a trained detection dog to sniff for narcotics on the front porch of a private home is a "search" within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution, and therefore, without consent, requires both probable cause and a search warrant

The government's use of trained police dogs to investigate the home and its immediate surroundings is a "search" within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment. Supreme Court of Florida affirmed.

Front 57

Florida vs Harris

Back 57

Florida v. Harris, 568 U.S. ___ (2013), was a case in which the United States Supreme Court addressed the reliability of a dog sniff by a detection dog trained to identify narcotics, under the specific context of whether law enforcement's assertions that the dog is trained or certified is sufficient to establish probable cause for a search of a vehicle under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution.[1] Harris was the first Supreme Court case to challenge the dog's reliability, backed by data that asserts that on average, up to 80% of a dog's alerts are wrong.[2][3]Twenty-four U.S. States, the federal government, and two U.S. territories filed briefs in support of Florida as amici curiae.[4][5]

If a bona fide organization has certified a dog after testing his reliability in a controlled setting, or if the dog has recently and successfully completed a training program that evaluated his proficiency, a court can presume (subject to any conflicting evidence offered) that the dog's alert provides probable cause to search, using a "totality-of-the-circumstances" approach.

Front 58

3 types of fixation

Back 58

Visual

Olfactory

Auditory

Front 59

Weakest point of search

Back 59

Boundaries

Front 60

? for Detective before a search warrant

Back 60

What kind of search?

How large is the area we are searching?

Q

Front 61

Key factors for every search

Back 61

Cover all accessible surfaces and areas, allowing for smooth connected presentations with limited interruptions and moving into prevailing wind currents whenever possible.

Front 62

US v Place

Back 62

United States v. Place, 462 U.S. 696 (1983), was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States which held that a sniff of luggage in a public place, by a police dog specially trained to detect the odor of narcotics, was not a "search" under the meaning of the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The Court reasoned that the sniff of a dog is sui generis, intended to disclose only the presence or absence of narcotics. Because a dog sniff is such a limited test, the Court carved out this exception from the broad category of "searches" for which a warrant is generally required.

Front 63

Illinois v Caballes

Back 63

Illinois v. Caballes, 543 U.S. 405 (2005), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that the Fourth Amendment is not violated when the use of a drug-sniffing dog during a routine traffic stop does not unreasonably prolong the length of the stop. A dog sniff conducted during a concededly lawful traffic stop that reveals no information other than the location of a substance that no individual has any right to possess does not violate the Fourth Amendment.

Front 64

Horton v Goose Creek

Back 64

Front 65

US v Stone

Back 65

According to "United States v. Stone 866 F.2d 359, 364 10th Cir. 1989", there is no expectation of privacy in the odors emanating from a vehicle. Thus, a sniff incidental to a traffic stop, and not supported by reasonable suspicion or probable cause, is limited to the exterior of the vehicle.