4 ms·

The problem with drug dogs is not that they can't sniff out drugs. It's that they can't testify.

by gress 13y ago

alexeisadeski3 13y ago
Also, if drug dogs are so effective, then their use constitutes a search! Thus a warrant should be required in order to deploy the dog.
- redblacktree 13y ago
  The justification is that drug dogs detect only contraband, and thus do not constitute an unreasonable search.
  - alexeisadeski3 13y ago
    We're all aware that the Supreme Court publishes justifications for these activities. But their justifications are tortured and absurd.
    - redblacktree 13y ago
      You were aware. Should I have assumed everyone else is too? I agree that this justification is weak, especially considering evidence that these dogs also respond to handlers' cues, but some folks are likely to be ignorant of the current law of the land. It was a statement of fact, not an argument in support of the law's interpretation.
jrs235 13y ago
And, they are used to punish people who do not consent to a search of their vehicle... officers will often have the dog jump on on the car and walk over the hood, top, and trunk a few times scratching the paint. EDIT: If you are completely innocent and refuse to consent to a search and they call a K-9 unit in to "sniff" you are being punished for not giving up your rights.
- redblacktree 13y ago
  A couple of relevant things you may like to know: 1) A K-9 sniff is not considered an illegal search, because it detects only contraband. 2) An officer cannot detain you solely for the purpose of awaiting a K-9 unit, and it's getting harder and harder for them to fudge by being intentionally slow, with duty video cameras etc. 3) This is a highly entertaining read that covers many of these points: http://slu.edu/Documents/law/Law%20Journal/Archives/LJ56-2_Mason_Article.pdf http://slu.edu/Documents/law/Law%20Journal/Archives/LJ56-2_M...
  - fnordfnordfnord 13y ago
    >because it detects only contraband. Well, that's what SCOTUS seems to believe. It is readily apparent though that dogs also detect handler cues, and may well also just alert erroneously, or detect such trace amounts that could be imparted to a car by incidental contact.

The problem with drug dogs is not that they can't sniff out drugs. It's that they can't testify.

by gress 13y ago

The problem with drug dogs is not that they can't sniff out drugs. It's that they can't testify.

Also, if drug dogs are so effective, then their use constitutes a search! Thus a warrant should be required in order to deploy the dog.

redblacktree 13y ago
The justification is that drug dogs detect only contraband, and thus do not constitute an unreasonable search.
- alexeisadeski3 13y ago
  We're all aware that the Supreme Court publishes justifications for these activities. But their justifications are tortured and absurd.
  - redblacktree 13y ago
    You were aware. Should I have assumed everyone else is too? I agree that this justification is weak, especially considering evidence that these dogs also respond to handlers' cues, but some folks are likely to be ignorant of the current law of the land. It was a statement of fact, not an argument in support of the law's interpretation.

jrs235 13y ago

And, they are used to punish people who do not consent to a search of their vehicle... officers will often have the dog jump on on the car and walk over the hood, top, and trunk a few times scratching the paint. EDIT: If you are completely innocent and refuse to consent to a search and they call a K-9 unit in to "sniff" you are being punished for not giving up your rights.

redblacktree 13y ago
A couple of relevant things you may like to know: 1) A K-9 sniff is not considered an illegal search, because it detects only contraband. 2) An officer cannot detain you solely for the purpose of awaiting a K-9 unit, and it's getting harder and harder for them to fudge by being intentionally slow, with duty video cameras etc. 3) This is a highly entertaining read that covers many of these points: http://slu.edu/Documents/law/Law%20Journal/Archives/LJ56-2_Mason_Article.pdf http://slu.edu/Documents/law/Law%20Journal/Archives/LJ56-2_M...
- fnordfnordfnord 13y ago
  >because it detects only contraband. Well, that's what SCOTUS seems to believe. It is readily apparent though that dogs also detect handler cues, and may well also just alert erroneously, or detect such trace amounts that could be imparted to a car by incidental contact.