I don't think you can really judge dogs in general based on statistics like this. We can't read a dogs mind and don't know all of their motivations. You can try

I don't think you can really judge dogs in general based on statistics like this. We can't read a dogs mind and don't know all of their motivations. You can try and do standardized training and testing, but any particular dog might not "get" the training properly, or might decide to do something a little different one day for reasons we don't understand. I'm thinking, it's okay to have a dog to guide you to things, but ultimately, the thing is either there, or it's not, and that's what any convictions should be based upon. If a dog guides you to an actual body, fine, do all your analysis and charges based on that. This whole business of the dog claiming that a body was there months or years ago but we have no idea where it is now seems like bullshit, and I don't think anyone should ever be convicted on that alone. Ditto drugs - search dogs may be imperfect, but ultimately the drugs are either there or they're not. If the dog guides you to actual drugs, charge away I guess. If there aren't any drugs and the dog was wrong, then no charges. It's a little bad that someone got searched based on a false indication, but not nearly as bad as an actual conviction and sentence.