4 ms·

I have heard the term "search warrant on four legs". In many jurisdictions, including the US, police officers are not allowed to search anybody or their cars,

I have heard the term "search warrant on four legs". In many jurisdictions, including the US, police officers are not allowed to search anybody or their cars, even if they are black. So if the dog learns to please his handler by indicating contraband, they have a chance to at best inconvenience anyone they (dis)like.

jaclaz 7y ago
>So if the dog learns to please his handler by indicating contraband, they have a chance to at best inconvenience anyone they (dis)like. Sure, but (of course it depends on countries and local Laws) it is only one of the possible ways (excuses) that can be used to target someone. Of course if in the car there is no drugs (or explosives) the only net result is a waste of time of both the policemen and the "target". It would seem to me much more relevant to know how many cars searched after a dog sniffed something ended up as being actually contraband free (false positives) and how many actually turned out as actually containing some drugs or whatever. If the dogs (in experiments without the influence of the trainer) have an accuracy of - say - 90% and with the influence of the trainer (or whatever other reason causes on field differences) this drops to - still say - 55% then there will be an issue as we would be nearing the flipism convenience, but if the overall accuracy remains in the 80 or 85% range then the effect - even if noticeable - would be not much relevant in practice. Or, if you prefer, I completely agree that a trainer can induce a dog to sniff something even when there isn't any, but the relevance of the fact depends only on how often this happens.
- lultimouomo 7y ago
  > Of course if in the car there is no drugs (or explosives) the only net result is a waste of time of both the policemen and the "target". Google for "civil forfeiture dog car stop". They don't need to find drugs to take the car or any cash in it, as the dog signalling is deemed enough of a cause for forfeiting, though not for prosecuting criminally.
  - jaclaz 7y ago
    Sure, I know about that. It is part of the (IMHO completely off) ways the Law is applied in the US, I don't think that the same exists (or is used to the same extent) in other countries. But the base issue is still about reliability of the dog, the integrity of the trainer handler and how it is considered "acceptable" see: 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/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-watch/wp/2015/08/04/...
    - bayesian_horse 7y ago
      Intent on the part of the handler is optional, I think. Common Biases on top of good intentions would be enough to produce the "desired" false positives.
- cbanek 7y ago
  For less reputable police, they might just say the dog alerted when it didn't. What's a layman to say? No it didn't? And courts usually give the benefit of the doubt to police, even if they technically shouldn't. Because police don't need probable cause to use a dog to search your car means it is the de facto way to escalate to a probable cause search, and even if a dog isn't present, bringing one there usually makes people uneasy, leading to claims of "suspicious behavior", and allows the police to detain someone until it arrives. Sadly, I don't think the false positive alert rate is something the police are looking at or trying to reduce. In my cynical opinion, they are just looking for more reasons to find you a criminal, even if you aren't one. If they view you as a criminal to start, that's a huge burden to overcome.
  - jaclaz 7y ago
    >For less reputable police, they might just say the dog alerted when it didn't. What's a layman to say? No it didn't? Exactly.
    - trotawa 7y ago
      I've seen body cam footage of the "less reputable" category of cops. The likelihood that drugs get planted in your car during a search (whether legitimate search or not) screws up all of these collected stats and just like most things in this country, there is a racist component to this that helps more easily target the poorer and browner. Terrorizing black people is a national pastime and somewhat tradition... some cops seem to want to continue that tradition and many white legislators are glad to give them the opportunity. For them, ignoring this research is a no-brainer.
    - whenchamenia 7y ago
      Odd, I raised that objection and a warrant to search my car was still issued. There are many, many shady cops. My guilt had alredy been assumed, and they were just hunting for justification.
  - bayesian_horse 7y ago
    I believe that malice is optional for the conduct of police officers to be problematical. Perfectly honest or understandable motivations and beliefs are sufficient.
pulisse 7y ago
> In many jurisdictions, including the US, police officers are not allowed to search anybody or their cars, even if they are black. In many US jurisdictions it is settled case law that a search is justified if an officer simply avers that they detect the smell of marijuana, with no other cause or corroboration required.

jaclaz 7y ago

>So if the dog learns to please his handler by indicating contraband, they have a chance to at best inconvenience anyone they (dis)like. Sure, but (of course it depends on countries and local Laws) it is only one of the possible ways (excuses) that can be used to target someone. Of course if in the car there is no drugs (or explosives) the only net result is a waste of time of both the policemen and the "target". It would seem to me much more relevant to know how many cars searched after a dog sniffed something ended up as being actually contraband free (false positives) and how many actually turned out as actually containing some drugs or whatever. If the dogs (in experiments without the influence of the trainer) have an accuracy of - say - 90% and with the influence of the trainer (or whatever other reason causes on field differences) this drops to - still say - 55% then there will be an issue as we would be nearing the flipism convenience, but if the overall accuracy remains in the 80 or 85% range then the effect - even if noticeable - would be not much relevant in practice. Or, if you prefer, I completely agree that a trainer can induce a dog to sniff something even when there isn't any, but the relevance of the fact depends only on how often this happens.

lultimouomo 7y ago
> Of course if in the car there is no drugs (or explosives) the only net result is a waste of time of both the policemen and the "target". Google for "civil forfeiture dog car stop". They don't need to find drugs to take the car or any cash in it, as the dog signalling is deemed enough of a cause for forfeiting, though not for prosecuting criminally.
- jaclaz 7y ago
  Sure, I know about that. It is part of the (IMHO completely off) ways the Law is applied in the US, I don't think that the same exists (or is used to the same extent) in other countries. But the base issue is still about reliability of the dog, the integrity of the trainer handler and how it is considered "acceptable" see: 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/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-watch/wp/2015/08/04/...
  - bayesian_horse 7y ago
    Intent on the part of the handler is optional, I think. Common Biases on top of good intentions would be enough to produce the "desired" false positives.
cbanek 7y ago
For less reputable police, they might just say the dog alerted when it didn't. What's a layman to say? No it didn't? And courts usually give the benefit of the doubt to police, even if they technically shouldn't. Because police don't need probable cause to use a dog to search your car means it is the de facto way to escalate to a probable cause search, and even if a dog isn't present, bringing one there usually makes people uneasy, leading to claims of "suspicious behavior", and allows the police to detain someone until it arrives. Sadly, I don't think the false positive alert rate is something the police are looking at or trying to reduce. In my cynical opinion, they are just looking for more reasons to find you a criminal, even if you aren't one. If they view you as a criminal to start, that's a huge burden to overcome.
- jaclaz 7y ago
  >For less reputable police, they might just say the dog alerted when it didn't. What's a layman to say? No it didn't? Exactly.
  - trotawa 7y ago
    I've seen body cam footage of the "less reputable" category of cops. The likelihood that drugs get planted in your car during a search (whether legitimate search or not) screws up all of these collected stats and just like most things in this country, there is a racist component to this that helps more easily target the poorer and browner. Terrorizing black people is a national pastime and somewhat tradition... some cops seem to want to continue that tradition and many white legislators are glad to give them the opportunity. For them, ignoring this research is a no-brainer.
  - whenchamenia 7y ago
    Odd, I raised that objection and a warrant to search my car was still issued. There are many, many shady cops. My guilt had alredy been assumed, and they were just hunting for justification.
- bayesian_horse 7y ago
  I believe that malice is optional for the conduct of police officers to be problematical. Perfectly honest or understandable motivations and beliefs are sufficient.

pulisse 7y ago

> In many jurisdictions, including the US, police officers are not allowed to search anybody or their cars, even if they are black. In many US jurisdictions it is settled case law that a search is justified if an officer simply avers that they detect the smell of marijuana, with no other cause or corroboration required.