3 ms·

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

by 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.)

by isolli 8y ago

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.)