5 ms·
It this began with a ticket agent (who generally gets a cut) and a "drug-sniffing" dog. Police dogs are magical beasts -- you just point the dog at the thing y
by ipsin 11y ago
It this began with a ticket agent (who generally gets a cut) and a "drug-sniffing" dog.
Police dogs are magical beasts -- you just point the dog at the thing you want searched and wait for it to "signal" that it's found something.
I really wish that the Supreme Court had had the chance to review the accuracy of drug dogs in their case this year (Rodriguez v. US).
How many times can a dog signal a false positive before you recognize that the drug dog is trying to please its handler? The police have no incentive to count.
- UnoriginalGuy 11y agoIt wasn't a false positive, he admits himself that he smoked weed on the way to the airport. That's really not the point of the article however.
- ipsin 11y agoMy point is that it can still be a false positive, even though "detecting weed" and "using weed" both occurred. The dog "alerted" for drugs, but the dog can't testify as to why -- because it actually smelled drugs or because it sensed its handler wanted it to. http://www.reviewjournal.com/news/crime-courts/legal-challenge-questions-reliability-police-dogs http://www.reviewjournal.com/news/crime-courts/legal-challen...
- UnoriginalGuy 11y agoSo just to be clear: He said he used drugs, a gate agent smelled drugs, the cops smelled drugs, and you just want to argue that if a dog also smelled drugs that that dog is unreliable even though the arrested party says the dog was correct..? I just don't understand what point you're even trying to make. Just seems like you want to talk/criticise drug-dog evidence even though it has no relation to this case at all. If the guy arrested and whose money was taken says he used drugs right before arriving at the airport I, for one, believe him. He has more to lose by saying that than he does by lying about it.
- jMyles 11y ago> So just to be clear: He said he used drugs, a gate agent smelled drugs, the cops smelled drugs, and you just want to argue that if a dog also smelled drugs that that dog is unreliable even though the arrested party says the dog was correct..? There's nothing strange about this. On one the features of a drug sniffing dog is that it is supposed to be able to distinguish between a lingering odor, a passing odor, the presence of residue, and the presence of actual material - in a way that a human can't.
- ghshephard 11y agoCould you provide a citation for that?
- jMyles 11y agoRadley Balko writes that he learned this from Gene Papet, a professional trainer of K9 unit dogs. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/radley-balko/supreme-court-considers-t_1_b_2063820.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/radley-balko/supreme-court-con...
- pandaman 11y agoThe article you have referred talks about numerous cases where dogs actually detect remaining odors and then alleges that dogs could be trained to ignore weak odors.
- jMyles 11y agoThat's still a false positive. Dogs are ostensibly trained to distinguish between a lingering odor (or "residue") and actual material. So the dog, we're told, indicated because of "residue," falsely giving a positive indication for material.
- pandaman 11y ago>Dogs are ostensibly trained to distinguish between a lingering odor (or "residue") and actual material. Have you got any citation for this? I am wondering how is it even possible.
- jMyles 11y agoRadley Balko writes that he learned this from Gene Papet, a professional trainer of K9 unit dogs. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/radley-balko/supreme-court-considers-t_1_b_2063820.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/radley-balko/supreme-court-con...
- ghshephard 11y agoThat would be pretty challenging, particularly as weed in transit is often double-vacuum packed and stored in boxes containing coffee beans to (try) and elude drug sniffing dogs. I can't even conceive how you could train a dog to distinguish between lingering/residue in that scenario.
- Houshalter 11y agoI think he meant users that have a joint in their pocket or something. Not experienced criminal operations that know about the dogs and are trying to evade them.