5 ms·
Dog searches should require consent or a warrant, IMO. Too many cases where the dog is "alerting" based on cues from the handler and not an actual presence of a
by throwawayboise 5y ago
Dog searches should require consent or a warrant, IMO. Too many cases where the dog is "alerting" based on cues from the handler and not an actual presence of any substances.
- cwkoss 5y agoDog searches should not be used as evidence unless the dog has been certified testing both false positive and false negative rates.
- minikites 5y agoWho is doing the certification? Why wouldn't they be just as corrupt as the police?
- asplake 5y agoQui custodiet ipsos custodes
- metiscus 5y agoExcellent point. For those who don't read latin or want to google translate it, the literal latin translation is: "Who will guard the guards themselves" The phrase is more commonly translated as: "Who will watch the watchers" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quis_custodiet_ipsos_custodes%3F https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quis_custodiet_ipsos_custodes%...
- dane-pgp 5y agoSomeone with a good understanding of Latin could use this thread as an opportunity to make a Latin joke, by translating "Who will watch the watchdogs?" or "Who will guard the guard dogs?".
- michaelmrose 5y agoForbidding sniff tests from being used as evidence themselves or cause for further searches is likeliest to result in a just outcome. Sometimes the best answer to who watches the watcher is to simplify by eliminating the position.
- anigbrowl 5y agoThey wouldn't have qualified immunity and their certifications would be questionable in court. That does not assure perfection, but it would be better than what we have now.
- michaelmrose 5y agoYou cannot interrogate the dog to discern why it alerted thus its "testimony" should be legally useless. It's not an instrument and it cannot be standardized and police departments and cops will always be incentivized to use them poorly as using it poorly will always garner more hits. Dog sniff tests like lie detectors should just be forbidden from being used in any capacity like every other pseudo scientific instrument.
- scythe 5y agoI was with you until the last sentence. Dogs work fine when the handler does not have preconceptions: when there is no suspect present. This is appropriate in customs enforcement for mail and luggage. It is never appropriate as a criterion for suspecting a present human, because the human-human interaction will influence the dog. The problem is that dogs have evolved to please humans and humans are very biased.
- Tabular-Iceberg 5y agoI’d even say it’s even fine for present humans. But the only thing they had to suspect Wendy Farris of was being a responsible motorist in stopping when too tired to drive safely. Maybe a breathalyser test could be warranted just to be safe, and if passed apologise for wasting her time. It sounds like the officers were either running a scam or were just looking for people to harass as make-work. “Field sobriety test”, what is that even? Sounds like a total scam.
- adgjlsfhk1 5y agoField sobriety tests are actually pretty reasonable. They're basically a collection of physical and mental tests that can pretty accurately determine impairment. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Field_sobriety_testing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Field_sobriety_testing is pretty good, but the TLDR is that they use things like the ability for your eyes to smoothly track a moving object, or the ability to stand on 1 foot for 30 seconds while counting. They aren't perfect, but they're pretty reliable as a way of screening people. IMO the bigger scam is the number of baseless infractions that cops can use to pull you over in the first place. If a cop wants to pull you over, they can find a reason if they follow you for a few minutes.
- nickysielicki 5y agoDog searches should not be used as evidence unless Officer Dog can be called to the stand to testify eloquently, in english.
- heavyset_go 5y agoCertifications mean nothing when a dog can be trained to give false positives when certain people want them to. It's not like dogs are machines, even small amount of unstructured positive and negative reinforcement can distract a dog from what it was trained to do.
- Tabular-Iceberg 5y agoThey don’t really make sense as evidence, anymore than the policeman’s torch or magnifying glass is evidence of anything. The dog is there just to give a hint where to start looking for the drugs. If the Americans manage to clear up this category error, they won’t want to use these defective dogs any more than they’d want to use a dim torch or a cracked magnifying glass.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- dheera 5y agoAgreed. Humans don't even let humans of foreign citizenship into law enforcement, so it makes even less sense to let another species make decisions about law enforcement.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- threatofrain 5y agoWhat's the point in hacky solutions to salvage the dog as an instrument in drug enforcement? I mean, "yes, I consent to an easily corrupted dog search?" People dislike black-box ML and "algorithms", but the approach seems miles ahead of Woof Woof I Smell Drugs as a Service.
- tokai 5y agoDrug sniffing bees should be hard for trainers to misuse.
- throwawayboise 5y agoNo, the answer is "no, I do not consent" then they would have to get a judge to sign off on a warrant just like if they wanted to search your house. And at that point, they don't need the dog, they can just search your car.
- fencepost 5y agoIt's basically never in your interest to consent to a search. By consenting the only thing you're really saying is "I voluntarily surrender my rights to object to anything you claim you found." Refusing consent may not stop a search (police may decide that refusing consent is suspicious therefore probable cause!), but it may help you retain opportunities for later legal recourse.
- dragonwriter 5y ago> It's basically never in your interest to consent to a search. This is absolutely true if the only relevant threat in your model is law enforcement action. In cases where that isn’t the right threat model, the issue is more complex.
- x86_64Ubuntu 5y agoWhen does not consenting to a search bring about threats that aren't from the law enforcement system?
- legohead 5y agoRequire dogs to have a 95%+ accurate history or be retired.
- mulmen 5y agoAre you willing to take that 5% chance in your next interaction with police? Why not 94%? Or 96%? Who defines accuracy? Who measures it?
- legohead 5y agoAccuracy: dog alerted -> no drugs found -> dog was incorrect, hence inaccurate I consider 95% to be highly accurate and reasonably acceptable, which is what I'd want in a drug dog. But I have no knowledge of what it should be, I'm not a dog expert. That's who I'd ask when making the determination of accuracy %. If it's anything less than 95%, though, I'd remove dogs completely.
- mulmen 5y agoIf you are the subject of a traffic stop do you want to take a one-in-twenty chance that the cops find drugs on you, even if you do not have them? 95% is not highly accurate, it is arbitrary.
- legohead 5y agoIt is what I consider highly accurate and acceptable, and the chance I am willing to take. You are free to disagree. Just because the dog alerts doesn't immediately mean you are guilty. The point of my comment is that there should be a standard at which the dogs have to meet.
- huntermeyer 5y agoPlus they can't testify. You can't cross-examine or dipose a dog. That's all I need to know to feel strongly that dogs should not be used to establish probable cause.