- Joined
- Feb 10, 2012
- Messages
- 1,044
I remember seeing an article last year in the High Times magazine about how, I don't remember which, an accredited university did a study and tested the drug sniffing dog's accuracy. They reported that more than 50% of the time the dogs were wrong. They also found that the dogs were more reliant upon their handler's signals and gestures more than their actual detecting abilities.
So I was watching Russell Brand's new show on FX and he brought it up because I guess they did this study again in Chicago. They found that 56% of the time the dogs got it wrong and that ~70% of those being searched were Hispanic.
Tribune analysis: Drug-sniffing dogs in traffic stops often wrong - Chicago Tribune
New studies show that drug dogs give false alerts more often than not » Alchemy of the Modern Renaissance || Good Vibes Promotions
Study Concludes Drug Dogs Err 50% of the Time in Making Drug Hits | Murray, KY, Attorneys | Gregory, Easley & Ernstberger
So having been searched, harassed, and falsely accused before this upsets me. I find it to be rather problematic and unjust. This is not to say that we should not use our canine companions to aid us in such things, but that this in specific is a slap in the face to our search and seizure rights. Now, in the articles you will see that some of these dogs are highly sensitive and that they can detect even residue, which in some instances may be the reason as to why the dog indicates a hit. However, it is has been made known before that there have been instances where drug dogs and their handlers have not been certified, yet they get called in to do jobs. Numerous experts have made comments on how both the dogs and the handlers need more training and practicing but have failed to do so over the years.
So what does the KHI people think about this? Is this a big deal or a minute one? Should this be allowed to continue? On a bigger scale, what does this say about the professionalism and decency of law enforcement? Any and all thoughts relating to this are welcome.
So I was watching Russell Brand's new show on FX and he brought it up because I guess they did this study again in Chicago. They found that 56% of the time the dogs got it wrong and that ~70% of those being searched were Hispanic.
Tribune analysis: Drug-sniffing dogs in traffic stops often wrong - Chicago Tribune
New studies show that drug dogs give false alerts more often than not » Alchemy of the Modern Renaissance || Good Vibes Promotions
Study Concludes Drug Dogs Err 50% of the Time in Making Drug Hits | Murray, KY, Attorneys | Gregory, Easley & Ernstberger
So having been searched, harassed, and falsely accused before this upsets me. I find it to be rather problematic and unjust. This is not to say that we should not use our canine companions to aid us in such things, but that this in specific is a slap in the face to our search and seizure rights. Now, in the articles you will see that some of these dogs are highly sensitive and that they can detect even residue, which in some instances may be the reason as to why the dog indicates a hit. However, it is has been made known before that there have been instances where drug dogs and their handlers have not been certified, yet they get called in to do jobs. Numerous experts have made comments on how both the dogs and the handlers need more training and practicing but have failed to do so over the years.
So what does the KHI people think about this? Is this a big deal or a minute one? Should this be allowed to continue? On a bigger scale, what does this say about the professionalism and decency of law enforcement? Any and all thoughts relating to this are welcome.
Last edited:
