Drug sniffing dogs

[Rose Garden]

My friend recently told me about having his car searched because a drug dog gave a positive response for his vehicle. He told me, "I swear the officer gave a signal for the dog to sit, which is an indication that the dog had smelled something." I was curious so I looked it up. Apparently, this is a big issue. Here's just one of many articles about it:

Drug Sniffing Dogs are a Law Enforcement Hoax

The recent ruling highlighted records indicating that the dog almost always signals that drugs are present, doing so 93 percent of the time. Moreover, the court cited additional figures indicating that Lex is frequently wrong about drugs being present; this occurs approximately 40 percent of the time.

"Lex's overall accuracy rate ... is not much better than a coin flip," the ruling said.

The reason this is a problem is because the same due process that is required for a search warrant is not required for a drug-sniffing dog to be used. A police officer can have a dog brought in, take his positive signal as an affirmation there is a problem, and then do a search of the vehicle or other personal space that is involved. The officer doesn't need probable cause to bring in the dog like he would a warrant.

I believe that drug-sniffing dogs should require a warrant just like a regular search of personal property would. I believe that using a drug dog is simply another way to do a search. I think this is a violation of a person's right to privacy when dogs are used this way. I'm wondering what others think about it.

[Silver]

My friend recently told me about having his car searched because a drug dog gave a positive response for his vehicle. He told me, "I swear the officer gave a signal for the dog to sit, which is an indication that the dog had smelled something." I was curious so I looked it up. Apparently, this is a big issue. Here's just one of many articles about it:

Drug Sniffing Dogs are a Law Enforcement Hoax

The recent ruling highlighted records indicating that the dog almost always signals that drugs are present, doing so 93 percent of the time. Moreover, the court cited additional figures indicating that Lex is frequently wrong about drugs being present; this occurs approximately 40 percent of the time.

"Lex's overall accuracy rate ... is not much better than a coin flip," the ruling said.

The reason this is a problem is because the same due process that is required for a search warrant is not required for a drug-sniffing dog to be used. A police officer can have a dog brought in, take his positive signal as an affirmation there is a problem, and then do a search of the vehicle or other personal space that is involved. The officer doesn't need probable cause to bring in the dog like he would a warrant.

I believe that drug-sniffing dogs should require a warrant just like a regular search of personal property would. I believe that using a drug dog is simply another way to do a search. I think this is a violation of a person's right to privacy when dogs are used this way. I'm wondering what others think about it.

Combine this abuse and immoral asset seizures by the police and you've got a populace living in constant fear. "Land of the free and home of the brave" Yeah, right.

[Rose Garden]

Don't tell them they are in fear, though. They hate that.

[mes5464]

This is a crime and is another example of how we have abandoned the Constitution.

[JohnnyL]

I agree, MeiLi. Yes, police officers can and do encourage false positives from dogs. If your friend had videotaped that, any decent judge would have thrown it all out. I'm not a lawyer or close to it, but it has to do with continuing uses of tools that weren't used before. Can I use a super-sensitive mic and pick up your private conversation from 50 yards away, and use it as evidence? Yup. So, where's the line, especially when technology is progressing?

In addition, drugs are king when it comes to police! They can say they smell marijuana, then have probable cause to search and find other things in the process. It's hard to smell a gun, for example, but not drugs! I've heard of lots of officers doing that. That's a free door to search everything. A good lawyer will want the police officer to prove or provide evidence that he smelled it. Especially if no drugs were found, that's pretty incriminating. It seems that until people start suing police officers (i.e., the city) and witholding donations due to lies like that, it won't stop.

[brianj]

I have heard of cops pulling over a driver for a traffic violation, being refused permission to search the car, and arresting the driver for a minor infraction because in that situation they are legally permitted to perform a search without permission or a warrant.

The cost of a legal defense is so high, and the potential punishment so severe, that innocent people regularly plead guilty or no contest because they don't feel they have another option.

This is one more wicked indictment of our society that I can't wait to see purged.

[Rose Garden]

I have heard of cops pulling over a driver for a traffic violation, being refused permission to search the car, and arresting the driver for a minor infraction because in that situation they are legally permitted to perform a search without permission or a warrant.

The cost of a legal defense is so high, and the potential punishment so severe, that innocent people regularly plead guilty or no contest because they don't feel they have another option.

This is one more wicked indictment of our society that I can't wait to see purged.

Right. The innocent are punished and the wicked go free because of their money. Sounds familiar, eh?

[JohnnyL]

And these are reasons why I am happy for Oregon right now. It stops putting so many people in jail and out from society, most of which can't afford good legal protection. Kill a person, you're ok (police officer), or maybe get 10 years and you're out in 5 for good behavior. Possess marijuana, and go to jail for life. That's what I call some serious reefer madness...