4 ms·

Anyone who knows anything about dogs would say that drug-sniffing dogs are a constitutional nightmare. They're basically a rubber-stamp. Dogs want to please t

Anyone who knows anything about dogs would say that drug-sniffing dogs are a constitutional nightmare. They're basically a rubber-stamp. Dogs want to please their handlers. If the handler wants the dog to alert, the dog will alert. The presence or absence of drugs isn't relevant to the dog.

moate 5y ago
Drug K-9 units are right up there with polygraph tests in the "fake nonsense without enough science involved and a high-degree of abusability".
- the_doctah 5y ago
  Pretty sure polygraphs are inadmissible in court these days and are mostly used as an interrogation tactic to elicit a confession
  - moate 5y ago
    Actually in several states they're still usable. Some as supporting evidence, others requiring double consent, and some just as evidence. Their time has not completely passed sadly. Never mind that the government itself still uses them as part of their security clearance process...
ineedasername 5y ago
Yes. I train my dogs to give me its paw when I show it a cookie and say "paw". It never takes long for them to just sit down and start waiving their paw around as soon as I pull out the cookie. Or rushing to the door when I get home and doing the same thing even when I didn't present a dog treat.
meowface 5y ago
Do you have a source on this, and on how common it is? I certainly wouldn't be surprised at all if it's true, but I'm curious about actual studies.
- ineedasername 5y ago
  The article for this post is a pretty good source: 100% rate for the dog indicating the presence of drugs is pretty much a rubber stamp.
  - meowface 5y ago
    >Similar patterns abound nationwide, suggesting that Karma's career was not unusual. Lex, a drug detection dog in Illinois, alerted for narcotics 93 percent of the time during roadside sniffs, but was wrong in more than 40 percent of cases. Sella, a drug detection dog in Florida, gave false alerts 53 percent of the time. Bono, a drug detection dog in Virginia, incorrectly indicated the presence of drugs 74 percent of the time. These are concerning false positive rates, but I don't think anything in the article suggests the extent of what the parent wrote, in a universal sense: >They're basically a rubber-stamp. Dogs want to please their handlers. If the handler wants the dog to alert, the dog will alert. The presence or absence of drugs isn't relevant to the dog.
    - jschwartzi 5y ago
      If I took a test in college and got 40% of the answers wrong I would get an F.
      - Smithalicious 5y ago
        It's interesting to see the difference in testing between the US and Europe (or NL at least) - here getting 60% correct is a passing grade (usually 50% is the minimum)
      - brewdad 5y ago
        I had a class in college where a 40% curved to a B. But yeah, the drug dogs are an end-around of the 4th Amendment.
      - meowface 5y ago
        Sure, but that's one particular dog. I'm asking about the statistics for all of the drug dogs in the US. I agree if a particular dog is wrong more than 10 - 20% of the time, the dog and/or the handler should be taken off of the job. And I agree that they probably shouldn't be allowed to be used by police unless they already have probable cause through some separate means.

moate 5y ago

Drug K-9 units are right up there with polygraph tests in the "fake nonsense without enough science involved and a high-degree of abusability".

the_doctah 5y ago
Pretty sure polygraphs are inadmissible in court these days and are mostly used as an interrogation tactic to elicit a confession
- moate 5y ago
  Actually in several states they're still usable. Some as supporting evidence, others requiring double consent, and some just as evidence. Their time has not completely passed sadly. Never mind that the government itself still uses them as part of their security clearance process...

ineedasername 5y ago

Yes. I train my dogs to give me its paw when I show it a cookie and say "paw". It never takes long for them to just sit down and start waiving their paw around as soon as I pull out the cookie. Or rushing to the door when I get home and doing the same thing even when I didn't present a dog treat.

meowface 5y ago

Do you have a source on this, and on how common it is? I certainly wouldn't be surprised at all if it's true, but I'm curious about actual studies.

ineedasername 5y ago
The article for this post is a pretty good source: 100% rate for the dog indicating the presence of drugs is pretty much a rubber stamp.
- meowface 5y ago
  >Similar patterns abound nationwide, suggesting that Karma's career was not unusual. Lex, a drug detection dog in Illinois, alerted for narcotics 93 percent of the time during roadside sniffs, but was wrong in more than 40 percent of cases. Sella, a drug detection dog in Florida, gave false alerts 53 percent of the time. Bono, a drug detection dog in Virginia, incorrectly indicated the presence of drugs 74 percent of the time. These are concerning false positive rates, but I don't think anything in the article suggests the extent of what the parent wrote, in a universal sense: >They're basically a rubber-stamp. Dogs want to please their handlers. If the handler wants the dog to alert, the dog will alert. The presence or absence of drugs isn't relevant to the dog.
  - jschwartzi 5y ago
    If I took a test in college and got 40% of the answers wrong I would get an F.
    - Smithalicious 5y ago
      It's interesting to see the difference in testing between the US and Europe (or NL at least) - here getting 60% correct is a passing grade (usually 50% is the minimum)
    - brewdad 5y ago
      I had a class in college where a 40% curved to a B. But yeah, the drug dogs are an end-around of the 4th Amendment.
    - meowface 5y ago
      Sure, but that's one particular dog. I'm asking about the statistics for all of the drug dogs in the US. I agree if a particular dog is wrong more than 10 - 20% of the time, the dog and/or the handler should be taken off of the job. And I agree that they probably shouldn't be allowed to be used by police unless they already have probable cause through some separate means.