3 ms·

Keep in mind that the dog isn't putting people in jail. It's assertion is merely being used as evidence for probable cause and a more in depth search. As rayine

by harryh 11y ago

Keep in mind that the dog isn't putting people in jail. It's assertion is merely being used as evidence for probable cause and a more in depth search. As rayiner notes elsewhere in this thread being right over half the time is generally considered the acceptable standard for probable cause.

shkkmo 11y ago
> being right over half the time is generally considered the acceptable standard for probable cause. Care to cite that? Because that means that in a neighborhood where 51% of the houses contain narcotics, the police have probable cause to search every single house.
- rayiner 11y ago
  See Section IIA of: http://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1577&context=lcp http://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=.... It explains that probable cause is generally considered a lower standard than preponderance of the evidence (which is a 51% standard).
  - shkkmo 11y ago
    Actually it sort of directly contradicts you right at the start of that section: >We do not know exactly what the phrase “probable cause” means, in strict numerical terms. We do, however, know what it does not mean: “probably.” That is, probable cause does not—in the context of Fourth Amendment law—mean that the police must have evidence sufficient to conclude that a suspect is probably guilty or that she probably has evidence of a crime hidden inside her home. I didn't read the whole paper, but the gist of it seems to being exploring the difference between 'concrete' and 'statistical' and evidence of effects (with a non-conclusive, but general indication that the supreme court leans towards 'concrete' over 'statistical') Basically if you have a 3 people in a car that contains drugs and thus know 1 of them is guilty, you have probable cause to arrest all of them. (Concrete) However, if you know that 1/3 of the black people in a certain neighborhood posses drugs, that does not mean you have probably cause to arrest all of them. (Statistical) Thus my argument is that the low accuracy rate of the dog vs. the baseline of the searched people (which in this case is only known because of the high alert rate) should not allow it to constitute 'concrete' evidence of probable cause. Additionally, the overall success rate of the dog/officer combination vs. the general population baseline constitutes 'statistical' evidence which is also not sufficient for probable cause. Generally, my argument would be that allowing the dogs to serve as a final determination of probable cause without requiring high accuracy rates leads to unnecessary harm to the general populace in the form of the unwarranted searched that could be prevented by encouraging effective training and usage.
belovedeagle 11y ago
You're missing the point entirely. We don't care terribly much about the people who eventually go to jail, at least not in isolation. The problem is innocent people who get searched illegally. Being sent to jail is not the only bad thing which can happen to people; being searched without probable cause is inherently unacceptable without regards to the results of the search.
- harryh 11y ago
  Being incorrectly sent to jail is much worse than being incorrectly searched. Therefore the standard of evidence for sending people to jail is higher than the standard of evidence to search people. Therefore the standard of evidence for probable cause is lower than the standard of evidence for a criminal conviction.
  - shkkmo 11y ago
    Your statements are correct but you are still missing the point.
    - harryh 11y ago
      Clearly you (and some others) think that the standard for probable cause should be higher than it is. Maybe you are right. Maybe you are not. It's a grey area for sure.
      - shkkmo 11y ago
        No, I think that training dogs to reliably provide probable cause rather than to reliably find drugs is both stupid and unconstitutional. That has nothing to do with how high the bar for 'probable cause' should be.
    - CamperBob2 11y ago
      No, his statement isn't even correct. The Bill of Rights is not divided into venial and mortal sins, and even if it were, I'd argue that the Fourth Amendment would not fall into the former category.

by harryh 11y ago

shkkmo 11y ago

> being right over half the time is generally considered the acceptable standard for probable cause. Care to cite that? Because that means that in a neighborhood where 51% of the houses contain narcotics, the police have probable cause to search every single house.

rayiner 11y ago
See Section IIA of: http://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1577&context=lcp http://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=.... It explains that probable cause is generally considered a lower standard than preponderance of the evidence (which is a 51% standard).
- shkkmo 11y ago
  Actually it sort of directly contradicts you right at the start of that section: >We do not know exactly what the phrase “probable cause” means, in strict numerical terms. We do, however, know what it does not mean: “probably.” That is, probable cause does not—in the context of Fourth Amendment law—mean that the police must have evidence sufficient to conclude that a suspect is probably guilty or that she probably has evidence of a crime hidden inside her home. I didn't read the whole paper, but the gist of it seems to being exploring the difference between 'concrete' and 'statistical' and evidence of effects (with a non-conclusive, but general indication that the supreme court leans towards 'concrete' over 'statistical') Basically if you have a 3 people in a car that contains drugs and thus know 1 of them is guilty, you have probable cause to arrest all of them. (Concrete) However, if you know that 1/3 of the black people in a certain neighborhood posses drugs, that does not mean you have probably cause to arrest all of them. (Statistical) Thus my argument is that the low accuracy rate of the dog vs. the baseline of the searched people (which in this case is only known because of the high alert rate) should not allow it to constitute 'concrete' evidence of probable cause. Additionally, the overall success rate of the dog/officer combination vs. the general population baseline constitutes 'statistical' evidence which is also not sufficient for probable cause. Generally, my argument would be that allowing the dogs to serve as a final determination of probable cause without requiring high accuracy rates leads to unnecessary harm to the general populace in the form of the unwarranted searched that could be prevented by encouraging effective training and usage.

belovedeagle 11y ago

You're missing the point entirely. We don't care terribly much about the people who eventually go to jail, at least not in isolation. The problem is innocent people who get searched illegally. Being sent to jail is not the only bad thing which can happen to people; being searched without probable cause is inherently unacceptable without regards to the results of the search.

harryh 11y ago
Being incorrectly sent to jail is much worse than being incorrectly searched. Therefore the standard of evidence for sending people to jail is higher than the standard of evidence to search people. Therefore the standard of evidence for probable cause is lower than the standard of evidence for a criminal conviction.
- shkkmo 11y ago
  Your statements are correct but you are still missing the point.
  - harryh 11y ago
    Clearly you (and some others) think that the standard for probable cause should be higher than it is. Maybe you are right. Maybe you are not. It's a grey area for sure.
    - shkkmo 11y ago
      No, I think that training dogs to reliably provide probable cause rather than to reliably find drugs is both stupid and unconstitutional. That has nothing to do with how high the bar for 'probable cause' should be.
  - CamperBob2 11y ago
    No, his statement isn't even correct. The Bill of Rights is not divided into venial and mortal sins, and even if it were, I'd argue that the Fourth Amendment would not fall into the former category.