What evidence do you have that they are "very inaccurate"?

 

Fixed the case in the response (it'd been awhile since I took Con Crim). Anyway, the theory goes that the dogs are more apt to please their handlers, so sometimes they will signal because they pick up on clues that their handler expects them to signal and do so to please them.

 

To illustrate this, I've read one article that talked about how dogs that were trained to find survivors in the aftermath of 9/11 and that rescuers had to hide and pretend to be "found" to reenforce to the dogs that they were doing a good job.

What evidence do you have that they are "very inaccurate"?

 

BTW, not saying that they automatically aren't good, just that sometimes the training, certification, and handling leaves some things to be desired as far as reliability.

 

Here's another article:

Supreme Court Considers Curbing Use Of Drug-Sniffing Dogs « CBS Boston

 

 

In the near future, I suspect that dogs will be replaced by machines that are much more accurate. For example, a machine that works similar to a breathalyzer.

BTW, not saying that they automatically aren't good, just that sometimes the training, certification, and handling leaves some things to be desired as far as reliability.

 

Here's another article:

Supreme Court Considers Curbing Use Of Drug-Sniffing Dogs « CBS Boston

 

 

In the near future, I suspect that dogs will be replaced by machines that are much more accurate. For example, a machine that works similar to a breathalyzer.

 

Regardless of the accuracy of the dogs, I agree with the decision that a dog sniff isn't enough to enter someone's home without a search warrant. Is it enough to obtain a search warrant? I don't really know. Someone's home has a higher expectation of privacy than their vehicle on a public roadway. That's the reason that police typically need a search warrant far more often (unless they have consent) to search someone's home. A vehicle is different. If police see something inside a car, they can search it. ( I know you probably know all of this)

 

As for the accuracy of the dogs, that article doesn't really give much to dispute their accuracy. It only states that they're not accurate enough to just use them as a search warrant to enter a home. The article mentioned one instance where a guy was arrested for meth products (dog alerted on the vehicle). It doesn't take a genius to figure out that the guy possibly had drugs in his car after that. The dog alerted again the next time he was stopped, and nothing was found. That doesn't mean the dog was wrong. It doesn't mean the dog was right either, but I don't think you can consider that a "false positive". It's possible drugs had recently been in that vehicle. We know he had meth products in it once before, so that isn't out of the realm of possibility. It's also possible that the police didn't find drugs that were in the car. He may have hid them better this time knowing where exactly the police would look...

 

I will say that I agree with anyone who says there are some k9's out there that are not trained all that well. Just like some departments have poorly trained officers, some also have poorly trained k9's.

 

Also, as for the machine you describe...I would say that is unlikely to happen in the "near future". Seems unrealistic.

Regardless of the accuracy of the dogs, I agree with the decision that a dog sniff isn't enough to enter someone's home without a search warrant. Is it enough to obtain a search warrant? I don't really know. Someone's home has a higher expectation of privacy than their vehicle on a public roadway. That's the reason that police typically need a search warrant far more often (unless they have consent) to search someone's home. A vehicle is different. If police see something inside a car, they can search it. ( I know you probably know all of this)

 

As for the accuracy of the dogs, that article doesn't really give much to dispute their accuracy. It only states that they're not accurate enough to just use them as a search warrant to enter a home. The article mentioned one instance where a guy was arrested for meth products (dog alerted on the vehicle). It doesn't take a genius to figure out that the guy possibly had drugs in his car after that. The dog alerted again the next time he was stopped, and nothing was found. That doesn't mean the dog was wrong. It doesn't mean the dog was right either, but I don't think you can consider that a "false positive". It's possible drugs had recently been in that vehicle. We know he had meth products in it once before, so that isn't out of the realm of possibility. It's also possible that the police didn't find drugs that were in the car. He may have hid them better this time knowing where exactly the police would look...

 

I will say that I agree with anyone who says there are some k9's out there that are not trained all that well. Just like some departments have poorly trained officers, some also have poorly trained k9's.

 

Also, as for the machine you describe...I would say that is unlikely to happen in the "near future". Seems unrealistic.

 

Yea... I definitely agree with a lot of what you are saying.

 

The Souter dissent in US v. Jones (police hid a GPS tracker under a cocaine dealer's car) cited something around 60% accuracy.

 

I think a lot of times, the dogs are right because their handlers have clues about other things that fit the "drug courier profile" (i.e., some people will put religious stickers on their car, thinking it makes them less suspicious, etc.) and go on that.

 

As for the machine, there's a guy in Denver already using one to detect public marijuana use (link below). Near future, maybe in the next 5-10 year range was what I was going for with that one.

 

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2013/11/14/245254291/denvers-smell-o-scope-targets-marijuanas-skunky-scent

Yea... I definitely agree with a lot of what you are saying.

 

The Souter dissent in US v. Jones (police hid a GPS tracker under a cocaine dealer's car) cited something around 60% accuracy.

 

I think a lot of times, the dogs are right because their handlers have clues about other things that fit the "drug courier profile" (i.e., some people will put religious stickers on their car, thinking it makes them less suspicious, etc.) and go on that.

 

As for the machine, there's a guy in Denver already using one to detect public marijuana use (link below). Near future, maybe in the next 5-10 year range was what I was going for with that one.

 

Denver's Smell-O-Scope Targets Marijuana's Skunky Scent : The Two-Way : NPR

 

Without looking it up, if that's the case I'm thinking of I think the ruling was that the training process for the dogs was good enough for probable cause in a traffic stop. Opponents said their accuracy in the field should be used to determine their use for probable cause.

 

I also don't think the issue is necessarily whether dogs can detect drugs, but as you said, there's a human component to it that a lot of people believe pollutes the veracity of it. If an office can ask a dog to signal or can claim it signaled without confirmation (saying the dog signaled off camera, for instance), then it undermines the idea of it.

K-9 accuracy goes back to the handler and the department...many times smaller departments come up with enough money to buy the dog, but then don't invest in OT pay for continued training of the dog and handler and in some cases don't get the dogs re-certified to ensure they are "Working" up to accepted standards.

Eight times seems just a bit overboard to me.

 

But nine times - that's where you get into Ferris Bueller territory.

What evidence do you have that they are "very inaccurate"?

 

Finally found a link that was publicly accessible:

 

ILLINOIS V. CABALLES

 

 

Line I was thinking of had Souter stating that a study by Illinois (the prosecution in the original case) stating that 12.5-60% of the time the dogs would yield false positives, dependent on the amount of time involved in the search.

 

U.S. v. Kennedy (a Supreme Court case, which I think is the one you mentioned earlier) cited the dog in that case having a 71% accuracy rate.

 

Definitely agree with a lot of the points you've made too though.

 

One of the things you'd mentioned was the fact that illicit substances could have previously been in the car. I know it probably depends on the kind of substances, how long they were in the vehicle, what quantity they were in, etc., but out of curiosity, do you know how long after those would be detected by a dog??? I know there's probably no firm answer on it given all the variables, but was wondering how often something like that might happen in practice (i.e., detected by a canine search).

Finally found a link that was publicly accessible: ILLINOIS V. CABALLES Line I was thinking of had Souter stating that a study by Illinois (the prosecution in the original case) stating that 12.5-60% of the time the dogs would yield false positives' date=' dependent on the amount of time involved in the search. U.S. v. Kennedy (a Supreme Court case, which I think is the one you mentioned earlier) cited the dog in that case having a 71% accuracy rate. Definitely agree with a lot of the points you've made too though. One of the things you'd mentioned was the fact that illicit substances could have previously been in the car. I know it probably depends on the kind of substances, how long they were in the vehicle, what quantity they were in, etc., but out of curiosity, do you know how long after those would be detected by a dog??? I know there's probably no firm answer on it given all the variables, but was wondering how often something like that might happen in practice (i.e., detected by a canine search).[/quote']

 

I'm not real sure. I'm by no means a K-9 expert. I know some guys who work with police k9's though and I'll try to ask them next time I see them.

I'm not real sure. I'm by no means a K-9 expert. I know some guys who work with police k9's though and I'll try to ask them next time I see them.

 

Thanks. That'd be cool.

 

I'm guessing that if the dogs are up to certification and the handler is experienced, etc. then the margin of error goes way down.

 

On the amount of time that an illicit substance had previously been there but was since removed probably has a huge range of detection depending on a number of variables like the chemical composition of the substance, the amount of it, the length of time it was there, etc.