5 ms·

Dog searches should not be used as evidence unless the dog has been certified testing both false positive and false negative rates.

by cwkoss 5y ago

minikites 5y ago
Who is doing the certification? Why wouldn't they be just as corrupt as the police?
- asplake 5y ago
  Qui custodiet ipsos custodes
  - metiscus 5y ago
    Excellent 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 ago
      Someone 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 ago
    Forbidding 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 ago
  They 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 ago
You 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 ago
  I 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 ago
    I’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 ago
      Field 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 ago
Dog searches should not be used as evidence unless Officer Dog can be called to the stand to testify eloquently, in english.
heavyset_go 5y ago
Certifications 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 ago
They 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]

Dog searches should not be used as evidence unless the dog has been certified testing both false positive and false negative rates.

by cwkoss 5y ago

Dog searches should not be used as evidence unless the dog has been certified testing both false positive and false negative rates.

minikites 5y ago

Who is doing the certification? Why wouldn't they be just as corrupt as the police?

asplake 5y ago
Qui custodiet ipsos custodes
- metiscus 5y ago
  Excellent 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 ago
    Someone 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 ago
  Forbidding 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 ago
They 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 ago

You 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 ago
I 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 ago
  I’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 ago
    Field 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 ago

Dog searches should not be used as evidence unless Officer Dog can be called to the stand to testify eloquently, in english.

heavyset_go 5y ago

Certifications 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 ago

They 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]