4 ms·
My 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
by ipsin 11y ago
My 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 agoTrue. I suppose in these (and many) cases, it's simply that this feature is turned off; probably regarded as a bug by the user.
- pandaman 11y agoOr this feature simply does not exist, contrary to your belief.
- jMyles 11y agoWell, if you think that Balko mis-reported, go ahead and ask him for clarification.
- pandaman 11y agoNo, I don't think so. I don't see where he said dogs are trained like that. He actually said almost the opposite - dogs are not ignoring weak smells.
- jMyles 11y agoI'm not following. He said that 1) such training is possible, and that 2) at least in some cases, it is ignored or that dogs who have this capability are rejected. So indeed, the feature appears, at least according to his source, to be available. And it also appears to be regarded as (or mistaken for) a bug by the users.
- pessimizer 11y agoJust because the dog alerted and the person later admitted that they had used drugs doesn't make the fact that the dog was used as justification for a search and confiscation tolerable. If they had used astrological 'cause' in the same circumstance, would you be ok with that? "We ran his name and found out he was a Pisces. That gave us grounds to search. He had money. That gave us grounds to seize it."