Dogs in the Correctional Service of Canada

By Kurt F. Suss ·

Law360 Canada (December 24, 2024, 1:19 PM EST) --
Kurt F. Suss
Kurt F. Suss
Anyone who has visited an airport or a prison has encountered a search dog trained to respond to illicit substances accurately. From a legal standpoint, false positives are the nemesis and demise of the professional detector dog team. If a dog team continues to demonstrate false positives, the credibility of the dog and the handler is greatly diminished. False positives that result in charges, restriction of privileges and infringement of rights, such as strip searches, will inevitably result in civil litigation.

In the early 1970s, the Correctional Service of Canada (CSC) began using dogs sporadically at different institutions. Local police departments generally helped. CSC also contracted a private trainer to travel the country to conduct prison searches.

In 1984, a program was developed using detection gerbils deployed at the entrances of five Canadian prisons. This proved successful but did not last long because the gerbils all died mysteriously at each institution.

In 1995, a pilot program began at Edmonton Maximum Institution with a Canada Customs-trained dog and a correctional officer as a handler. This program was discontinued before any results could be documented.

In 1988, CSC management learned that I was a narcotic detector dog trainer who was experienced with police and
Man with dog

Photo courtesy of author

detection dogs. I was asked to bring in a dog for a family social, not actually to search for drugs but to stand at the front entrance of the institution. In short, it was an overwhelming success!

Management was dumbfounded by the number of inmate visitors who had seen the dog and returned to their cars in the parking lot before returning. This inspired other family social deployments. I received support from CSC's Regional and National Headquarters (RHQ and NHQ) to develop a recognized program with a German Shepherd named Heidi. I trained with local departments, but it was not anything like institutional deployment in large prisons.

Large-scale searches of cell blocks posed unique difficulties. Many issues were impeding successful searches: repetition of cell after cell, many distractions as well and drug odour almost everywhere. In addition, inmates were permitted to have as much food as they wanted in their cells, including uncooked meat. Food-proofing the dog was also part of my training. CSC sent me and my dog to work with corrections departments in Kinross, Michigan, where we worked in many large prisons. Heidi and I became the first certified prison detector dog team in CSC.

“Casey,” a springer spaniel, replaced Heidi after complaints that she intimidated inmates and their families. A friendly looking dog was adopted.

Overwhelming success

Casey and I were deployed to all Ontario CSC facilities and two institutions in Quebec. We were doing so well that other agencies called for us to assist. Police, provincial institutions, schools, colleges, military bases and even the RCMP would use us for warrants. My program was going well enough that I caught the interest of NHQ. I was supported to train in Texas with the Department of Corrections, then many more agencies through the states and one German police agency. I was approached to present a national proposal to train dog teams for every institution in Canada. The proposal was accepted by special projects at NHQ. Once my proposal was ready to bring to fruition, another agency stepped in, and CSC disposed of me; Customs Canada took over. Their program was almost identical to what I had prepared except for the training style and method of indication.

I used a dynamic alert instead of “a passive alert.” My training style was specific to eliminate any possibility for false positives and ensure handler accountability as to why their dog did or did not find contraband. Also, I wanted to eliminate any chance of handlers knowingly or unknowingly signalling their dog to indicate contraband.

Another practice I learned in Texas was not to search people without cause. Another area where I did not recommend that I learned in Texas was not to search people without cause because of the many possibilities for legal repercussions. In addition to the dogs, I was involved in a pilot project for an ion scanner to detect drugs by taking and analyzing a swab taken from a person’s possessions. This technique proved impractical because of the false positives and legal implications, but that’s another story.

In 1995, I started a program with a manager at Drumheller Institution in Alberta. Trainers from Texas came to Drumheller to train Terry Yeman and supply a certified detector dog. The program was successful until Customs Canada took it over. Yeman was discontinued, and he decided to retire.

Today, I don’t follow the CSC program other than casually and occasionally conversing with local handlers. CSC now deploys three dog teams per institution across Canada. There are now more dogs and drug interdictions than I have ever seen. Ironically, I have never seen as large an amount of drugs in Canadian prisons as we have now.

Kurt F. Suss is a corrections officer with Correctional Service of Canada and a retired handler trainer consultant. He is the author of Dogman: The Trials and Tribulations. He is currently at work on his second book Why Dogs Bite. He can be reached at isiscanine@hotmail.com

The opinions expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the author’s firm, its clients, Law360 Canada, LexisNexis Canada or any of its or their respective affiliates. This article is for general information purposes and is not intended to be and should not be taken as legal advice.   

Interested in writing for us? To learn more about how you can add your voice to Law360 Canada, contact Analysis Editor Peter Carter at peter.carter@lexisnexis.ca or call 647-776-6740.