If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Roanoke Times)   Pro tip to cops: if you always want to be able to search a stopped motorist's car, just carry along a drug sniffing dog that always says there are drugs present   (roanoke.com) divider line 187
    More: Asinine, Roanoke, detection dog, Lincoln Navigator, police dogs, cocaine, federal Judge Glen Conrad, Randy Cargill  
•       •       •

13103 clicks; posted to Main » on 30 Jun 2012 at 1:44 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



187 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-06-30 10:49:25 AM
So the dog is only right a 25% of the time? New definition of good enough for government work......
 
ZAZ [TotalFark]
2012-06-30 11:02:41 AM
The appeal goes to the Fourth Circuit, which recently ruled that a police officer's visual estimate of 75 in a 70 zone was not reasonable grounds for a traffic stop.
 
2012-06-30 11:04:15 AM
Yea, that's pretty S.O.P. for cops. If they suspect something, but don't have enough evidence for probable cause to search your car, they'll just place a call to the K-9 unit, get the dog out, have it give an alarm, then search the car.

Even if it's a false positive, who care's cause you wouldn't do anything illegal, right citizen?
 
2012-06-30 11:04:38 AM
Without drug dogs, how are cops going to justify an illegal search of your vehicle? C'mon, people, this is America. And the most important this is the War on Drugs. Gotta keep those prisons filled.
 
2012-06-30 11:07:52 AM
However, the judge ruled that other factors, including the dog's training and flawless performance during re-certification sessions

So in a controlled situation the dog is batting 1000 and in the real world he'shiatting 22 for 85?

I would think that type of evidence pointed in the other direction.
 
2012-06-30 11:08:54 AM

basemetal: So the dog is only right a 25% of the time? New definition of good enough for government work......


This judge has an odd definition of "probable". I usually use the word "probable" and its derivations to indicate a better than 50% chance. Like, "I'm probably going to give the missus a dutch oven tonight" is a sentence I would say, where "While enjoying the dutch oven, the missus is probably going to initiate fellatio" would be inaccurate.
 
2012-06-30 11:25:39 AM
Dogs can easily smell traces of things far below human perception thresholds.

Example: Someone smoked pot in a vehicle a couple of days ago. A dog might easily smell the residue, even if there is no longer anything that counts as evidence in the vehicle.

Think how many people there are that smoke weed that get pulled over, without any evidence of their marijuana use in the vehicle at that time. Of course there will be a high false-positive rate.

However, in a laboratory setting, the dog performed flawlessly.

I'm not saying that they should be using dogs like this in general, but in the event that they have chosen to do so, it doesn't seem unreasonable in this case. Hell, the dog indicated what part of the vehicle the drugs were hidden in.

Also, there was a really easy way for this guy to not be caught with drugs, which would have involved not driving around with a kilo of coke in a vehicle with tinted windows.
 
2012-06-30 11:31:57 AM
This happens all the time, even if the dog has an awesome nose and smells that there is nothing, some handlers will still get their dog to hit on a car. A good dog's nose would be batting 1000 if his handler was a robot.
 
2012-06-30 11:35:55 AM

violentsalvation: This happens all the time, even if the dog has an awesome nose and smells that there is nothing, some handlers will still get their dog to hit on a car. A good dog's nose would be batting 1000 if his handler was a robot.


I could have phrased that a lot better to address the content of the article, but you get it.

MOAR COFFEE
 
2012-06-30 11:36:22 AM

violentsalvation: This happens all the time, even if the dog has an awesome nose and smells that there is nothing, some handlers will still get their dog to hit on a car. A good dog's nose would be batting 1000 if his handler was a robot.


Exactly. Dog may have the best nose in the world, but if his handler wants there to be a hit, then by god there will be a hit. Sounds like his handler has terrible accuracy.
 
2012-06-30 11:38:23 AM

Sid_6.7: I'm not saying that they should be using dogs like this in general, but in the event that they have chosen to do so, it doesn't seem unreasonable in this case. Hell, the dog indicated what part of the vehicle the drugs were hidden in.


Dogs are used to justify probable cause. To my thinking, any method that results in a false positive rate of more than 25% is unreasonable. But hell, something with a 75% false positive rate? That's beyond unreasonable search.
 
2012-06-30 11:40:12 AM

violentsalvation: This happens all the time, even if the dog has an awesome nose and smells that there is nothing, some handlers will still get their dog to hit on a car. A good dog's nose would be batting 1000 if his handler was a robot.


[citation needed]
 
2012-06-30 12:01:45 PM

Babwa Wawa: violentsalvation: This happens all the time, even if the dog has an awesome nose and smells that there is nothing, some handlers will still get their dog to hit on a car. A good dog's nose would be batting 1000 if his handler was a robot.

[citation needed]


Here's one I'm sure you can find others.
 
2012-06-30 12:07:03 PM

Babwa Wawa: But hell, something with a 75% false positive rate? That's beyond unreasonable search.


First, it isn't a 75% false positive rate. Like TFA says, there have been a number of times where it was revealed that there had been drugs present, but had been removed before the dog inspected the vehicle.

Second, that's the false positive rate in the field. In the lab the false positive rate is 0%.

What causes this massive difference? Most likely the fact that the dog can often detect drug residue well after the drugs are long gone.

If the dogs are so unreliable, can you find any examples, laboratory or otherwise, where a dog did not indicate that there were drugs, and in fact there were drugs?

Remember, we're talking about dogs. They have a sense of smell that is roughly several hundred thousand times better than humans. They can track people cross-country following a trail hours or even days old. They can definitely smell the pot residue on the jacket of the guy who smoked a joint a week ago. Imperceptibly small particles are more than enough for dogs to detect.
 
2012-06-30 12:07:05 PM

scottydoesntknow: Yea, that's pretty S.O.P. for cops. If they suspect something, but don't have enough evidence for probable cause to search your car, they'll just place a call to the K-9 unit, get the dog out, have it give an alarm, then search the car.

Even if it's a false positive, who care's cause you wouldn't do anything illegal, right citizen?


There's no bloody way in hell that I'll consent to a search. Probable cause is a necessity in lieu of a very specific search warrant (with my attorney present). These are my Constitutional rights. You don't get to go on fishing expeditions in case I may be committing a crime.
 
2012-06-30 12:17:14 PM

Sid_6.7: Dogs can easily smell traces of things far below human perception thresholds.

Example: Someone smoked pot in a vehicle a couple of days ago. A dog might easily smell the residue, even if there is no longer anything that counts as evidence in the vehicle.



It is not a crime to have smoked weed in the past. It is a crime to be in possession of weed. What you are describing is dogs alerting to a condition that is not a criminal offense.
 
2012-06-30 12:19:29 PM

Sid_6.7: First, it isn't a 75% false positive rate. Like TFA says, there have been a number of times where it was revealed that there had been drugs present, but had been removed before the dog inspected the vehicle.


I thought the goal was to find drugs where they are, not where they were.

Sid_6.7: Second, that's the false positive rate in the field. In the lab the false positive rate is 0%.


Which would be great if they didn't have to do searches in the field. Also, the accuracy of the dog isn't really what we're after - the handler and dog are a team, their accuracy must be gauged as a team.

Sid_6.7: emember, we're talking about dogs. They have a sense of smell that is roughly several hundred thousand times better than humans. They can track people cross-country following a trail hours or even days old. They can definitely smell the pot residue on the jacket of the guy who smoked a joint a week ago. Imperceptibly small particles are more than enough for dogs to detect.


I don't disagree that they can be reliable trackers. But there are increasing numbers of reports and research that call into question the reliability of dogs in drug cases.

Can we agree that there is a threshold somewhere under which a dog and handler team generate too many false positives support probable cause? If so, what is that number? I think that soon we'll be getting a number from the supreme court anyway.

Don't get me wrong - I don't advocate getting rid of canines in police forces. But I think that the assessment of their performance needs to be standardized.
 
2012-06-30 12:22:42 PM

violentsalvation: Babwa Wawa: violentsalvation: This happens all the time, even if the dog has an awesome nose and smells that there is nothing, some handlers will still get their dog to hit on a car. A good dog's nose would be batting 1000 if his handler was a robot.

[citation needed]

Here's one I'm sure you can find others.


That's a citation that a dog can be trained to respond to its handler's cues, which is obvious. I was looking for a citation that a dog can be 100% accurate without a handler.
 
2012-06-30 12:41:15 PM

Babwa Wawa: violentsalvation: Babwa Wawa: violentsalvation: This happens all the time, even if the dog has an awesome nose and smells that there is nothing, some handlers will still get their dog to hit on a car. A good dog's nose would be batting 1000 if his handler was a robot.

[citation needed]

Here's one I'm sure you can find others.

That's a citation that a dog can be trained to respond to its handler's cues, which is obvious. I was looking for a citation that a dog can be 100% accurate without a handler.


That was just like my opinion (and exaggeration), man.
 
2012-06-30 01:10:22 PM
I handled both bomb and drug detector dogs in the Air Force, was even a certifying trainer for dog teams. I am given to understand the systems hasn't changed much since I worked with the dogs in the 90's. One of the hardest parts was eliminating handler influence, the handler gets the idea in their head and leads the dog, who wants to please the handler to give a false positive.

As a fair cop, I tended to do my searches with the dog off leash using only minimal direction to keep the dog on task. When working off leash, the likelihood of my interference drops as the dog is not constantly watching the me (the handler) and is focused on the search. There were times when it was "suggested" I work on leash provide a bit of "guidance" for the dog.

In the end, dogs are extremely reliable, humans are not.

/cool anecdotal evidence bro
//Its funny how bomb sniffing dogs never seem to have this problem, there seems to be no motivation to find explosives that aren't there
 
2012-06-30 01:14:26 PM

Ennuipoet:

//Its funny how bomb sniffing dogs never seem to have this problem, there seems to be no motivation to find explosives that aren't there


Now that's a study I would want to see. The number of false positives among drug dogs vs. bomb-sniffing dogs.
 
2012-06-30 01:19:56 PM
So we're back to a "hunch" is good enough reason?
 
2012-06-30 01:50:35 PM
Perhaps the cops should bring a mounted unit, like Clever Hans
 
2012-06-30 01:50:52 PM
scottydoesntknow:
violentsalvation: This happens all the time, even if the dog has an awesome nose and smells that there is nothing, some handlers will still get their dog to hit on a car. A good dog's nose would be batting 1000 if his handler was a robot.

Exactly. Dog may have the best nose in the world, but if his handler wants there to be a hit, then by god there will be a hit. Sounds like his handler has terrible accuracy pulls over a large number of People Who Annoy Him.
 
2012-06-30 01:53:19 PM

Sid_6.7: What causes this massive difference? Most likely the fact that the dog can often detect drug residue well after the drugs are long gone.


Bullshiat. Most likely, the false positives are caused by false alerts instigated by the officer. Drug sniffing dogs are one of the biggest scams in law enforcement. Right up there with checkpoints and civil forfeiture.

/What constitution?
 
2012-06-30 01:55:17 PM
From TFA, it seems that dog's nose is too sensitive and detects faint traces or the presence of the drug long after it was gone.
 
2012-06-30 01:56:57 PM
Oldest trick in the book. Cop sticks his thumb up the dog's ass to get it to react, then claim probable cause for a search.
 
2012-06-30 01:57:35 PM
The dog's nose is batting .250 - waaaay better than Brandon Inge.
 
2012-06-30 01:59:48 PM
calling out the doggie patrol sounds like a giant PITA. overall most people don't like to make extra work for themselves. i'm no law lover but i get the feeling most of the time Deputy Dawg is called in it's not for shiats & giggles.

the dogs are just another extension/tool of the 'cops can & will do whatever they want anytime they want'. if you were a cop that thought someone was busting your balls you'd pay them back too. just like guys that make the cop chase them down. don't act surprised when they drag you behind the garage after they got their dry clean only soiled.

/avoid anyone that carries multiple weapons & restraints
 
2012-06-30 01:59:56 PM
Doesnt matter how good they are, the handlers train the dogs to "alert" on command anyway.........

That said, considering the amount of drugs, they probably are protecting a CI anyway.
 
2012-06-30 01:59:57 PM
Next: having a car is a probable cause to search it for drugs. There's a 1 percent chance* that you are trafficking drugs, so you probably are.

*rounded value
 
2012-06-30 02:00:37 PM
Would you like to know more?

My Berner can smell bacon at 3000 yards - no false positives
 
2012-06-30 02:01:34 PM
An officer flipping a coin has a higher probability of correctly predicting whether drugs are present. Better yet, the coin doesn't care either way.
 
2012-06-30 02:02:08 PM
In other news, Bam Morris has changed his name to Herbert Green.
 
2012-06-30 02:02:43 PM
You people are missing the real tragedy here.
The dog's name is BONO and that's the best headline you slackers could come up with?
 
2012-06-30 02:03:05 PM

basemetal: So the dog is only right a 25% of the time? New definition of good enough for government work......


Well according to most studies, 20% of the general populous use marijuana and/or other illicit drugs, so it's pulling a whole 5% over the national average.

/or 5% of people lie about using drugs on a survey
 
2012-06-30 02:03:31 PM
Cop: Hey boly, are there drugs in there hmmm?
Bono: YEA YEA YEA YEA!
 
2012-06-30 02:03:36 PM

Babwa Wawa: "While enjoying the dutch oven, the missus is probably going to initiate fellatio"


This is the greatest sentence ever written.
 
2012-06-30 02:03:36 PM
Has anybody ever had a dog not indicate there were drugs in the car? I was trading stories with people just last week - every time the dog showed up, the dog indicated a hit (according to the officer).

Amount of drugs found: Zero.

Cops really don't like it when you tell them they can't search your car.
 
2012-06-30 02:05:50 PM
Any weapon you give a douchebag cop will be abused in this manner. If the cop wants the dog to indicate there are drugs it will do so, whether there's anything there or not.
 
2012-06-30 02:07:21 PM

Honest Bender: Sid_6.7: What causes this massive difference? Most likely the fact that the dog can often detect drug residue well after the drugs are long gone.

Bullshiat. Most likely, the false positives are caused by false alerts instigated by the officer. Drug sniffing dogs are one of the biggest scams in law enforcement. Right up there with checkpoints and civil forfeiture.

/What constitution?


You are a very wise individual, and should publish these ideas in a format in which I might receive your insights on a frequent and scheduled repeating basis.
 
2012-06-30 02:07:59 PM
In other news, Subby thinks dogs can speak.
 
2012-06-30 02:08:32 PM
Years back somewhere in America, the local cops in a town created a new 'program' so they could 'reach out' to the 'community'. Cops were empowered to pull you over at will...not to give you a ticket for infraction or whatever, but rather to give you a gift certificate for free burgers, soft drinks, etc as good a 'reward' for being a good driver. Yeah that is how they dressed it up. If a cop had no justifiable reason what so ever to get up close to you and get a suspicious nose in your vehicle or person...they could stop you under the pretense that they were saying "thank yous" and such for being such a proper and conscious driver. See...this way you were damned if you did or did not f*ck up...and the LE cover their bases either way...

And how did they justify it when confronted by the local news? One of these citizen interaction atta boys yielded a 1/4 ounce of weed during a stop. WEED for God's sake!!!! The Chief LE was all smug and proud and shrugging his shoulders with that pretentious 'what you gota worry about if you ain't got nothing to hide' conservative attitude...

America #1
 
2012-06-30 02:10:34 PM
You know, we can always stop acting like weed is the most horrible thing ever and stop tossing people who have smoke residue on their clothes from their friends smoking it a month ago into prison.

But what do I know, the War on Drugs tells us this is for the good of the children, and the children trump all other arguments for or against. Plus it's mighty profitable to have prisons overflowing with criminals.
 
2012-06-30 02:10:37 PM

Babwa Wawa: violentsalvation: Babwa Wawa: violentsalvation: This happens all the time, even if the dog has an awesome nose and smells that there is nothing, some handlers will still get their dog to hit on a car. A good dog's nose would be batting 1000 if his handler was a robot.

[citation needed]

Here's one I'm sure you can find others.

That's a citation that a dog can be trained to respond to its handler's cues, which is obvious. I was looking for a citation that a dog can be 100% accurate without a handler.


I pretty sure the article stated the dog is 100% accurate in a lab setting. The lab test would mean the handler can't give a cue to the dog because the handler doesn't know where drugs are either. There's your citation.
 
2012-06-30 02:11:27 PM
Judge: "Derp derp derpity derp"

Attorney: "Appeal"
 
2012-06-30 02:13:33 PM
american typical. This has little to do with dogs and nothing to with reality or justice. The 'war on drugs' is a tool to make midwesterners and southerners (of which I am party) demand the spending of your tax dollars essentially because they dislike or perhaps simply fear, brown people of any descent. This is directly responsible for the violent death of thousands, the unrealistic incarceration of millions, and a disproportianate rate in the rise of incurable std's. One day we'll all be dead and you won't have the ability to ask whom to thank.
 
2012-06-30 02:14:21 PM
My car was searched by a drug sniffing dog. He alerted to a half eaten Wendy's single. Made me an hour late picking up my son. Ex wife was pissedd off and didn't believe a word of it.
 
2012-06-30 02:15:19 PM
Other great gems from this Judge:

"the reliability of a radar detector does not rise or fall on the basis of one scan."

"the reliability of an officer does not rise or fall on the basis of one scandal."

"the reliability of a judge does not rise or fall on the basis of one bad judgement."
 
2012-06-30 02:15:26 PM
Came for Ron White reference, leaving disappoint.
 
Displayed 50 of 187 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report