4 ms·

Over the holidays with the in-laws, we watched one of those Cops type shows and I was a little incredulous about the use of the drug sniffing dog. It occurred

by ksdale 8y ago

Over the holidays with the in-laws, we watched one of those Cops type shows and I was a little incredulous about the use of the drug sniffing dog. It occurred to me that they could just have the dogs alert basically whenever they wanted them to. In practice, they seemed to bring the dogs out when the driver of a vehicle was very obviously high, so it seems like they may have had probable cause anyway, but it still seemed alarming that a dog that can so easily be manipulated is an appropriate way to get into someone’s car.

isolli 8y ago
You would be right: > The troopers told the pair that VanderWiel’s dog “alerted” on the vehicle’s back side. However, the spot where the dog alerted was out of the frame of the video from [the troopers'] vehicle, the lawsuit said. Convenient. And not at all uncommon. And drug dogs are notorious for false alerts in the field. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-watch/wp/2014/10/03/another-civil-asset-forfeiture-outrage/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-watch/wp/2014/10/03/...
- oftenwrong 8y ago
  See also: >Florida v. Harris, 568 U.S. 237 (2013),[1] 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.[2] 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. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florida_v._Harris https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florida_v._Harris
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  - chrchang523 8y ago
    "Up to 80% of a dog's alerts are wrong" can't be evaluated without more information about base rate. If this is occurring in a context where the dogs are only being brought out when there's already prior cause to expect narcotics with >10% likelihood, that doesn't look good for the police. But if that number is more like 1%, even an 80% false positive rate corresponds to doing more than half of the remaining classification work (it's appropriate to look at this on a logistic scale). (Also, "up to" should be unpacked; a 95% confidence interval is a lot more informative than a rough upper bound.)
ceejayoz 8y ago
> It occurred to me that they could just have the dogs alert basically whenever they wanted them to. Yes. The dog will pick up on the small (sometimes entirely unconscious) cues that their handler is really, really hoping for an alert.
- emiliobumachar 8y ago
  See Clever Hans. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clever_Hans https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clever_Hans " horse was not actually performing these mental tasks, but was watching the reactions of his trainer"
pessimizer 8y ago
> In practice, they seemed to bring the dogs out when the driver of a vehicle was very obviously high In practice, they bring out the dog whenever they don't get consent to search. This is how street policing works: 1) Have a feeling about a car. 2) Tailgate that car. 3a) If there is an obvious visual justification for a stop, like a broken taillight, unlit license plate, temporary tags in the window, or tinted windows, attempt to pull that car over. 3b) If there isn't an obvious visual justification for a stop, follow very closely for an extended period time until a minor traffic law is broken, or you get a call over the radio to go somewhere else (in which case, end.) When someone "rolls past a stop" or forgets to use their turn signal when switching lanes, speeds by a few mph, or stops short causing you to brake (because you are half a car-length behind them), pull them over. 3c) If they do nothing, pull them over once you get bored with following them and say they were driving erratically. 4) Mention to the driver your pretense for pulling them over while looking them over. If they look poor, give you attitude, or you just don't like them, ask them for consent to search. 5a) If they give you consent, search. 5b) If they don't give you consent, tell them that you have a reasonable suspicion because you smell something, and that if they don't give you consent, they will have to wait at the side of the road for 10-30 minutes for the dog to come. To avoid that wait, they can just give you consent now. 5b1) If they give you consent, search. 5b2) If they don't, wait for the dog (unless you get bored or get a call), when the dog comes, tell them the dog alerted. Search. 6a) If you find something, act accordingly. 6b) If you don't find anything, say you're going to let them off with a warning for the excuse you used to pull them over, get back into car and drive until you have a feeling about another car. The pretty sad thing is that this process is pretty obvious on the cinema verité cop shows, it's such a standard practice that they don't mind doing it when you're looking. The shameful thing about it is that these shows edit out the 99% of the time that the person has nothing, and that the dog "alerts" and they don't find anything. A pretty cool thing with the new "Live PD" show is that you get to see the dog alerting every single time, and listen to the cop accusations that "you must have smoked earlier, or you must be letting someone drive your car, or else my dog that has never not alerted wouldn't have alerted."
- gamblor956 8y ago
  Charges based on the scenario you described would get thrown out of car 9 times out of 10. 5b) If they don't give you consent, tell them that you have a reasonable suspicion because you smell something, and that if they don't give you consent, they will have to wait at the side of the road for 10-30 minutes for the dog to come. To avoid that wait, they can just give you consent now. If they have a reasonable suspicion due to smell, they don't need the dog to conduct a search. The point of using a dog is when there isn't a smell, to have the dog "alert" even in the absence of a detectable smell--generally by claiming that certain non-alert behaviors were actually alert behaviors indicating the dog detected the presence of drugs. (Police search dogs are trained to "alert" by barking and sitting once they detect drugs, but in most stops officers claim the dogs "alerted" them by sniffing continuously or pawing at a particular location.)
mnm1 8y ago
Of course. Drug sniffing dogs have been shown over and over to be about as effective as a coin flip in figuring out whether drugs are present or not, but they are still allowed. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-watch/wp/2015/08/04/federal-appeals-court-drug-dog-thats-barely-more-accurate-than-a-coin-flip-is-good-enough/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.3f7709d5db47 https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-watch/wp/2015/08/04/... From warrant to arrest to conviction, everything often happens on fabricated, bullshit "evidence". And of course, unless you're super rich, you won't be going to trial to defend yourself, innocent or not. If you're lucky enough to not get killed by the cops that arrest you, you can look forward to being tortured, and enslaved prison. Hell, even if you're just awaiting trial in jail you can be beaten and tortured. That's the American "justice" system in a nutshell.
- gamblor956 8y ago
  Real life is not like Oz. Literally everything you stated is the exceptional case and not the norm in the American justice system. Especially the part about getting killed by the arresting cops--that's news precisely because it happens so rarely.

by ksdale 8y ago

isolli 8y ago

You would be right: > The troopers told the pair that VanderWiel’s dog “alerted” on the vehicle’s back side. However, the spot where the dog alerted was out of the frame of the video from [the troopers'] vehicle, the lawsuit said. Convenient. And not at all uncommon. And drug dogs are notorious for false alerts in the field. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-watch/wp/2014/10/03/another-civil-asset-forfeiture-outrage/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-watch/wp/2014/10/03/...

oftenwrong 8y ago
See also: >Florida v. Harris, 568 U.S. 237 (2013),[1] 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.[2] 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. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florida_v._Harris https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florida_v._Harris
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- chrchang523 8y ago
  "Up to 80% of a dog's alerts are wrong" can't be evaluated without more information about base rate. If this is occurring in a context where the dogs are only being brought out when there's already prior cause to expect narcotics with >10% likelihood, that doesn't look good for the police. But if that number is more like 1%, even an 80% false positive rate corresponds to doing more than half of the remaining classification work (it's appropriate to look at this on a logistic scale). (Also, "up to" should be unpacked; a 95% confidence interval is a lot more informative than a rough upper bound.)

ceejayoz 8y ago

> It occurred to me that they could just have the dogs alert basically whenever they wanted them to. Yes. The dog will pick up on the small (sometimes entirely unconscious) cues that their handler is really, really hoping for an alert.

emiliobumachar 8y ago
See Clever Hans. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clever_Hans https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clever_Hans " horse was not actually performing these mental tasks, but was watching the reactions of his trainer"

pessimizer 8y ago

> In practice, they seemed to bring the dogs out when the driver of a vehicle was very obviously high In practice, they bring out the dog whenever they don't get consent to search. This is how street policing works: 1) Have a feeling about a car. 2) Tailgate that car. 3a) If there is an obvious visual justification for a stop, like a broken taillight, unlit license plate, temporary tags in the window, or tinted windows, attempt to pull that car over. 3b) If there isn't an obvious visual justification for a stop, follow very closely for an extended period time until a minor traffic law is broken, or you get a call over the radio to go somewhere else (in which case, end.) When someone "rolls past a stop" or forgets to use their turn signal when switching lanes, speeds by a few mph, or stops short causing you to brake (because you are half a car-length behind them), pull them over. 3c) If they do nothing, pull them over once you get bored with following them and say they were driving erratically. 4) Mention to the driver your pretense for pulling them over while looking them over. If they look poor, give you attitude, or you just don't like them, ask them for consent to search. 5a) If they give you consent, search. 5b) If they don't give you consent, tell them that you have a reasonable suspicion because you smell something, and that if they don't give you consent, they will have to wait at the side of the road for 10-30 minutes for the dog to come. To avoid that wait, they can just give you consent now. 5b1) If they give you consent, search. 5b2) If they don't, wait for the dog (unless you get bored or get a call), when the dog comes, tell them the dog alerted. Search. 6a) If you find something, act accordingly. 6b) If you don't find anything, say you're going to let them off with a warning for the excuse you used to pull them over, get back into car and drive until you have a feeling about another car. The pretty sad thing is that this process is pretty obvious on the cinema verité cop shows, it's such a standard practice that they don't mind doing it when you're looking. The shameful thing about it is that these shows edit out the 99% of the time that the person has nothing, and that the dog "alerts" and they don't find anything. A pretty cool thing with the new "Live PD" show is that you get to see the dog alerting every single time, and listen to the cop accusations that "you must have smoked earlier, or you must be letting someone drive your car, or else my dog that has never not alerted wouldn't have alerted."

gamblor956 8y ago
Charges based on the scenario you described would get thrown out of car 9 times out of 10. 5b) If they don't give you consent, tell them that you have a reasonable suspicion because you smell something, and that if they don't give you consent, they will have to wait at the side of the road for 10-30 minutes for the dog to come. To avoid that wait, they can just give you consent now. If they have a reasonable suspicion due to smell, they don't need the dog to conduct a search. The point of using a dog is when there isn't a smell, to have the dog "alert" even in the absence of a detectable smell--generally by claiming that certain non-alert behaviors were actually alert behaviors indicating the dog detected the presence of drugs. (Police search dogs are trained to "alert" by barking and sitting once they detect drugs, but in most stops officers claim the dogs "alerted" them by sniffing continuously or pawing at a particular location.)

mnm1 8y ago

Of course. Drug sniffing dogs have been shown over and over to be about as effective as a coin flip in figuring out whether drugs are present or not, but they are still allowed. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-watch/wp/2015/08/04/federal-appeals-court-drug-dog-thats-barely-more-accurate-than-a-coin-flip-is-good-enough/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.3f7709d5db47 https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-watch/wp/2015/08/04/... From warrant to arrest to conviction, everything often happens on fabricated, bullshit "evidence". And of course, unless you're super rich, you won't be going to trial to defend yourself, innocent or not. If you're lucky enough to not get killed by the cops that arrest you, you can look forward to being tortured, and enslaved prison. Hell, even if you're just awaiting trial in jail you can be beaten and tortured. That's the American "justice" system in a nutshell.

gamblor956 8y ago
Real life is not like Oz. Literally everything you stated is the exceptional case and not the norm in the American justice system. Especially the part about getting killed by the arresting cops--that's news precisely because it happens so rarely.