It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
U.S. v. Bentley is just the latest in a series of rulings in which the federal courts refuse to consider the possibility that police departments may be manipulating the dogs to authorize unlawful searches — or at the very least that police agencies aren’t ensuring that the dogs are being trained to minimize the possibility, even though that would be easy to do.
Lex, the drug dog that searched Bentley’s car, had a 93 percent alert rate. That is, when Lex was called to search a car, he alerted 93 percent of the time.
His success rate was much lower, at 59 percent. That is, the police actually found drugs just six of the 10 times Lex told them they would. That means that four of every 10 people Lex alerted to were subjected to a thorough roadside search that produced nothing illegal.
Even a dog that was well trained initially can be conditioned to pick up bad habits once it’s in the field. This is exactly what was happening with Lex. It turns out that Lex’s handler gives the dog a reward every time he alerts, regardless of whether that alert is accurate. Lex isn’t getting rewarded for filtering innocent motorists from guilty ones. He’s being trained to authorize a search, each and every time he’s called to duty.
In Bentley, it turns out that the dog was correct. The suspect was found to be transporting a large supply of coc aine.
the Seventh Circuit found no problem with a drug dog whose accuracy rate was 62 percent.
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit gave its okay to a dog with a success rate of 43 percent, or less accurate than a coin flip.
In 2013, the Supreme Court made things worse in Florida v. Harris. In that case, the court unanimously ruled that mere certification of a drug dog was enough to establish a presumption that a drug dog is reliable, regardless of the reputation of the certifying organization, regardless of whether that organization understands and appreciates the importance of training dogs to ignore their handlers’ suspicions, and regardless of the dog’s performance in the real world.
Following the Supreme Court’s prescription in Harris, the opinion notes that that the dog had passed tests in “controlled settings” and cited testimony about the dog’s reliability. But that testimony came from the dog’s handler. And there’s no further explanation of what those tests in controlled settings meant.
originally posted by: r0xor
Do you have a better system to introduce to fix these ills of society?
originally posted by: VictorVonDoom
originally posted by: r0xor
Do you have a better system to introduce to fix these ills of society?
How about armed roving gangs performing citizens arrests on cops, judges, prosecutors, and their families. Maybe the laws will be changed after a few cops are killed for resisting arrest, or judges have their cars seized, or their family members are left paralyzed because they forgot to use their turn signals or they "fit the description."
Just remember to vote. Can't be on a jury if you don't vote.
originally posted by: Aleister
Odd that they call these dogs police officers, and they are legally officers. Fact is none of them volunteered, they are all enslaved into being an "officer". Involuntary servitude right at the get go. They really have no say in what governmental agencies make them do. All they do is Pavlov along notwithstanding the criteria that they must serve their human masters or figuratively or metaphorically feel the lash. Poor doggies.