4 ms·

Long story short, dogs aren’t reliable enough to be medical devices. The whole “police dog” comparison is completely misleading. Drugs dogs are hilariously unr

Long story short, dogs aren’t reliable enough to be medical devices. The whole “police dog” comparison is completely misleading. Drugs dogs are hilariously unreliable and are explicitly used by some departments solely to create probable cause. And with SAR dogs, they don’t need to be reliable at tracking as long as they are better than humans.

Ariarule 5y ago
The article gives _good_ sensitivity and specificity numbers for dogs, under appropriate conditions.
sidewndr46 5y ago
On the contrary, they are 100% reliable. They always detect drugs when they are present. They also detect drugs when they aren't present. But hey, probable cause is just a pesky constitutional law concept anyways.
- guerrilla 5y ago
  So more like 150%-200% reliable
- Ekaros 5y ago
  Has this been blind tested? That is for example simulated mules carrying well protected drugs at end of the long day?
mmh0000 5y ago
Here, have some free citations. This is something which I believe everyone should be aware of: "Drugs dogs are hilariously unreliable and are explicitly used by some departments solely to create probable cause."[0][1][2] [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florida_v._Harris https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florida_v._Harris [1] https://www.utahcriminallaw.net/drug-sniffer-dog-false-positive/ https://www.utahcriminallaw.net/drug-sniffer-dog-false-posit... [2] https://www.smh.com.au/environment/conservation/sniffer-dogs-get-it-wrong-four-out-of-five-times-20111211-1oprv.html https://www.smh.com.au/environment/conservation/sniffer-dogs...
umvi 5y ago
Have there actually been studies that put drug dogs to the test under controlled conditions? Just looking at airport stats isn't enough. A drug dog might sniff trace amounts of drugs on clothing, but a search may not turn up anything because the trace amounts are from days earlier. Or maybe the contraband is too well hidden to be found, and so the drug dog's signal is labelled a "false positive" because the search failed even though it really was a true positive. Even if a drug dog is only right 50% of the time, that's still pretty incredible odds unless literally 50% of the population is carrying illegal drugs at any given time. I'm not saying that I don't believe drug dogs used as an excuse to manufacture probable cause, but I also don't believe the concept of an accurate drug-sniffing dog is impossible, considering blood hounds can detect and follow extremely dilute traces of a person's scent.
- kayodelycaon 5y ago
  Something like 80% of us paper currency has trace amounts of cocaine on it. Which means anyone carrying cash is likely carrying drugs.
perfecthjrjth 5y ago
The whole "police dog" is a supreme court approved way to subvert the fourth amendment: https://reason.com/2011/02/18/four-legged-warrants/ https://reason.com/2011/02/18/four-legged-warrants/

Ariarule 5y ago

The article gives _good_ sensitivity and specificity numbers for dogs, under appropriate conditions.

sidewndr46 5y ago

On the contrary, they are 100% reliable. They always detect drugs when they are present. They also detect drugs when they aren't present. But hey, probable cause is just a pesky constitutional law concept anyways.

guerrilla 5y ago
So more like 150%-200% reliable
Ekaros 5y ago
Has this been blind tested? That is for example simulated mules carrying well protected drugs at end of the long day?

mmh0000 5y ago

Here, have some free citations. This is something which I believe everyone should be aware of: "Drugs dogs are hilariously unreliable and are explicitly used by some departments solely to create probable cause."[0][1][2] [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florida_v._Harris https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florida_v._Harris [1] https://www.utahcriminallaw.net/drug-sniffer-dog-false-positive/ https://www.utahcriminallaw.net/drug-sniffer-dog-false-posit... [2] https://www.smh.com.au/environment/conservation/sniffer-dogs-get-it-wrong-four-out-of-five-times-20111211-1oprv.html https://www.smh.com.au/environment/conservation/sniffer-dogs...

umvi 5y ago

Have there actually been studies that put drug dogs to the test under controlled conditions? Just looking at airport stats isn't enough. A drug dog might sniff trace amounts of drugs on clothing, but a search may not turn up anything because the trace amounts are from days earlier. Or maybe the contraband is too well hidden to be found, and so the drug dog's signal is labelled a "false positive" because the search failed even though it really was a true positive. Even if a drug dog is only right 50% of the time, that's still pretty incredible odds unless literally 50% of the population is carrying illegal drugs at any given time. I'm not saying that I don't believe drug dogs used as an excuse to manufacture probable cause, but I also don't believe the concept of an accurate drug-sniffing dog is impossible, considering blood hounds can detect and follow extremely dilute traces of a person's scent.

kayodelycaon 5y ago
Something like 80% of us paper currency has trace amounts of cocaine on it. Which means anyone carrying cash is likely carrying drugs.

perfecthjrjth 5y ago

The whole "police dog" is a supreme court approved way to subvert the fourth amendment: https://reason.com/2011/02/18/four-legged-warrants/ https://reason.com/2011/02/18/four-legged-warrants/