Last edited by BVC (2013-11-09 02:00:14)
it's kind of sad you think that's normalAdams_BJ wrote:
Say yes officer, no officer, go on your way. Tyranny.
It's been proven that drug dogs have very high false alert rates, and that the primary cause is the handler 'leading' the dog in that very way.coke wrote:
That's how dog handlers work. They will point to an area to make sure the dog check's it. The dog will check it and should only alert if it detects something. There is nothing untoward about a dog handler pointing at an area to search.-Sh1fty- wrote:
I've saw a checkpoint video where the handler points to a part on the vehicle and the dog scratches that part and barks. The LEOs then claim the dog alerted them so they had an excuse to search the video.
This is the world we live in. There will always be injustices and people abusing the system. Not really much we can do about it.
Stubbee wrote:
They don't keep drug dog performance stats.
http://www.georgemasonlawreview.org/doc/14-1_Myers.pdfWith a pretty good dog, but a largely innocent population, a dog alert
will signal drugs only about sixteen percent of the time. The reason is this:
Because the officer is stopping mostly innocent people, one has to be more
concerned about the false positive error (alerting when there are no drugs).
Because there are more cars without drugs in them, the gross number of
searches that result from the error rate will be higher than the gross number
of searches that result from correct alerts. Overall, there will be many more
searches of innocent people than there will be searches of guilty people.
Or from the handler giving cues to the dog that he wants something found, even if it is subconcious.coke wrote:
Proven by whom?
Half the time false alerts will be because there was something there, which is no longer present. Or from transfer.
And is this happens repeatedly questions of the dog's ability start to be asked and it gets shit binned.Jay wrote:
Or from the handler giving cues to the dog that he wants something found, even if it is subconcious.coke wrote:
Proven by whom?
Half the time false alerts will be because there was something there, which is no longer present. Or from transfer.
A 16% positive rate is good enough for you? Might as well take a random sample.coke wrote:
For me an indication from a drug detection dog, is more than enough "probable cause" to carry out a search...
I never said not was normal, its just not tyranny.Jay wrote:
it's kind of sad you think that's normalAdams_BJ wrote:
Say yes officer, no officer, go on your way. Tyranny.