4 ms·
Assuming this is corroborated by more studies, I wonder how long this would take to result in a change in the acceptance of dog sniffs as probable cause. Does a
by shadowfiend 15y ago
Assuming this is corroborated by more studies, I wonder how long this would take to result in a change in the acceptance of dog sniffs as probable cause. Does anyone know of any precedent or previous situation where such a change happened?
- epochwolf 15y agoIt would require a court to change the precedence since probable is determined by the courts. It could happen fairly quickly if the right case was argued in the right court. Best case would still take years. I personally think it will take decades. Courts don't move quickly without pressure to change and police don't like to give up the powers they have.
- shadowfiend 15y agoYes, presumably. I guess I'm wondering what level of evidence/studies courts typically want in these situations before overturning precedent. Obviously it varies from court to court, though :)
- epochwolf 15y agoNot sure. I would imagine one good expert witness with a good lawyer and a few studies could make headway if there was sufficient public pressure. Court cases don't happen in a vacuum. :)
- sunchild 15y agoRight. If one expert can make a compelling case to a jury, that jury will set a precedent for future defense lawyers. In fact, I'd be surprised if it isn't already the case in some jurisdictions.
- westicle 15y agoJuries don't set precedents. The precedent affects the directions given to the jury by the judge, and can generally only be changed by an appellate court ("the direction given by the judge in x case was incorrect and therefore the conviction should be overturned/the case retried"). Regardless of the direction given, juries are generally entitled to return whatever verdict they want (see jury nullification). If a judge (correctly) directs them that a sniffer dog alert constitutes cause for a search they may still acquit.
- sunchild 15y agoI think you're confusing legal "precedent" with the colloquial meaning of the word. Isn't it obvious that I meant "precedent" in the sense of "a jury found this expert's testimony to be credible once, and therefore is likely to do so again"? Seems like the "for future defense lawyers" should have been enough of a clue to head off the pedantic hair-splitting.
- Alex3917 15y agoThere have been other studies with similar results, e.g. http://norml.org/news/2011/12/15/false-alert-rate-for-drug-dogs-tops-80-percent http://norml.org/news/2011/12/15/false-alert-rate-for-drug-d...
- TruthElixirX 15y agoForever since the U.S. still uses fucking polygraphs in some cases.
- ams6110 15y agoPolygraphs are not admissible as evidence, nor is refusal to submit to one. They can be requested in interrogations if you agree, you may well be lied to about the results in an attempt to get a confession. You should never agree to take one if you find yourself in this circumstance.
- TruthElixirX 15y agoIts not quite that clear: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polygraph#United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polygraph#United_States But, last I checked, polygraphs were required for certain government positions in the U.S, but am having a problem finding a citation for that right now.
- ams6110 15y agoAh, yes. I was speaking only in the context of a criminal investigation/prosecution. The page you linked states: While polygraph tests are commonly used in police investigations in the US, no defendant or witness can be forced to undergo the test It appears some states may allow the results to be presented, but sounds like it cannot be required.