Legal challenge questions reliability of police dogs

The #1 community for Gun Owners in Indiana

Member Benefits:

  • Fewer Ads!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • Kutnupe14

    Troll Emeritus
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jan 13, 2011
    40,294
    149
    The police don't come up empty handed.

    If nothing is there then it never happened. Down the memory hole it goes and it never happened.

    If something is there, I get to hear about how the dog magically evolved the ability to smell pills.

    You'd be incorrect. At my agency, it nothing is found, it's documented. It's the same way with all out handlers. I obviously can't speak for all agencies, but that's the way it works with us.

    As far as using dogs, I've only done it a handful of times. There was once, where I thought I smelled something and the dog confirmed it, and another when I thought I smelled something, and the dog told me to check my sense of smell. I don't like the idea of "thinking" I "might" smell something, and doing a search. I want to know, and a dog is invaluable in that regard. You can trust that there are frequent times when a person "thinks" they smell something, go into a car, and are wrong. You can be upset with that, but it unfirtunately happens. But a dog put that notion to rest, rather than have an officer that honestly believes otherwise, searches.
     

    Libertarian01

    Grandmaster
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    3   0   0
    Jan 12, 2009
    6,019
    113
    Fort Wayne
    To All,

    This thread got me thinking about a show I saw several years ago. Apparently, dogs are being trained to detect certain kinds of cancer on patients. The dogs can smell the disease and provide an unbiased detection for doctors to do a quick and easy search. If the dog shows positive the doctors can look harder at the patient to determine if cancer is present.

    The point is the medical staff is truly neutral. As a matter of fact they probably don't want to find cancer! I wonder how the dog takes the ques from the medical staff versus a police dog in the field taking ques from it's police handler who does want to stop the bad guy? The medical dog isn't lead toward a "positive" result whereas the police dog might be.

    My concern is our use of any presumption of accuracy on a system that hasn't been proven so. We do not allow lie detector results in court due to their proven unreliability. This doesn't stop the cheap talk shows from using them and creating the false view to the public that they are accurate - just not accurate enough. I believe that is part of the problem. We have a cultural belief that the lie detector is accurate, even if it isn't. We have a cultural belief that the police dog is infallible, even if it isn't.

    I hope that one day the Supreme Court will overturn the use of police dog detection as evidence if they cannot be proven to a degree of reliability that is measurable and accurate enough for scientific standards.

    Regards,

    Doug
     
    Top Bottom