Posted on 02/27/2013 5:08:50 PM PST by Kaslin
Imagine that a police officer, after taking it upon himself to search someone's car, is asked to explain why he thought he would find contraband there. "A little birdie told me," he replies.
Most judges would react with appropriate skepticism to such a claim. But substitute "a big dog" for "a little birdie," and you've got probable cause.
Or so says the U.S. Supreme Court, which last week unanimously ruled that "a court can presume" a search is valid if police say it was based on an alert by a dog trained to detect drugs. The court thereby encouraged judges to accept self-interested proclamations about a canine's capabilities, reinforcing the alarmingly common use of dogs to justify invasions of privacy. Drug-detecting dogs are much less reliable than widely believed, with false-positive error rates as high as 96 percent in the field. A 2006 Australian study found that the rate of unverified alerts by 17 police dogs used to sniff out drugs on people ranged from 44 percent to 93 percent.
Police and prosecutors commonly argue that when a dog alerts and no drugs are found, "the dog may not have made a mistake at all," as Justice Elena Kagan put it, writing for the Court. Instead, it "may have detected substances that were too well hidden or present in quantities too small for the officer to locate."
This excuse is very convenient -- and completely unfalsifiable. Furthermore, probable cause is supposed to hinge on whether there is a "fair probability" that a search will discover evidence of a crime. The possibility that dogs will react to traces of drugs that are no longer present makes them less reliable for that purpose.
So does the possibility that a dog will react to smell-alike odors from legal substances, distractions such as food or cues from their handlers. Given all the potential sources of error, it is hard to assess a dog's reliability without looking at its real-world track record. That is why the Florida Supreme Court, in the 2011 decision that the U.S. Supreme Court overturned, said police should provide information about a dog's hits and misses.
"The fact that the dog has been trained and certified," it said, "is simply not enough to establish probable cause," especially when, as in most states, there are no uniform standards for training or certification.
Kagan, by contrast, minimized the significance of a dog's success at finding drugs in the field. She said police testing in artificial conditions is a better measure of reliability, even though handlers typically know where the drugs are hidden and can therefore direct the animals to the right locations, either deliberately or subconsciously.
Instead of requiring police to demonstrate that a dog is reliable, this decision puts the burden on the defense to show the dog is not reliable through expert testimony and other evidence that casts doubt on the training and testing methods used by police. But experts are expensive, and police control all the relevant evidence.
Police even determine whether the evidence exists. Many departments simply do not keep track of how often dog alerts lead to unsuccessful searches, and this decision will only encourage such incuriosity.
The court previously has said that police may use drug-sniffing dogs at will during routine traffic stops and may search cars without a warrant, based on their own determination of probable cause. Now that it has said a dog's alert by itself suffices for probable cause, a cop with a dog has the practical power to search the car of anyone who strikes him as suspicious.
Even the question of whether a dog did in fact alert may be impossible to resolve if there is no video record of the encounter, which is often the case. As Florida defense attorney Jeff Weiner puts it, the justices "have given law enforcement a green light to do away with the Fourth Amendment merely by uttering the magic words, 'My dog alerted.'"
Your desperation is pathetic. If sniffer dogs are so inept, why are they used in search and rescue, explosives and bomb detection in both civil and military operations ?
The people are the power. They vote for those who create the laws.
Seriously, dude. This is a limited-government website. A Constitutional website. And you are spouting this progressive crapola?
And also realize. I understand that is the current dynamic. But our fight is against such.
The NACDL and the ACLU also describe a 1984 operation in which Florida state police stopped about 1,330 vehicles at roadblocks and walked dogs around them. If one dog alerted, another was brought in, and vehicles were searched only if both dogs indicated the presence of illegal drugs. That happened 28 times, but those searches yielded just one drug arrest. "Despite the requirement that two dogs alert before a search," the NACDL/ACLU brief notes, "police found illegal narcotics sufficient to justify an arrest in only 4% of cars searched," meaning "the likelihood of a false alert was approximately 96%." With impressive chutzpah, Florida's lawyers claim "this example at most shows a 'false' alert rate under 2%." You see what they did there ? Twenty -seven false alerts divided by 1,330 cars equals 2 percent. But the relevant question is not the percentage of vehicle stops that resulted in a false alert; it is the percentage of alerts (in this case, double alerts) that turned out to be false. For purposes of probable cause, we want to know the likelihood that a search triggered by a dog's alert will find drugs. In this case it was 4 percent—not, as Florida's tricky calculation implies, 98 percent.
What is going on when a dog alerts and no drugs are found ? Police and prosecutors want us to believe these are not really false alerts at all: Either the drugs were so cleverly hidden that the cops could not find them, or the dog detected otherwise imperceptible traces left by drugs that were recently in the vehicle or by contact with drug users' hands (which is what the prosecution claimed in Harris). But these explanations are completely unfalsifiable and amount to nothing but self -serving speculation. Furthermore, the "residual odor" excuse weakens rather than strengthens the case for probable cause, since the traces could have been left by someone other than the driver: a passenger, a previous owner, even (as the defendant's lawyers in Harris suggest) a cash -strapped addict who tried to open the vehicle's door while looking for stuff to steal. In addition to residual odors, dogs can be confused by the smells of food, other dogs, and legal chemicals they have been trained to associate with drugs. But perhaps the biggest source of error is the cues that dogs pick up from their handlers, whose expectations can influence the animals' behavior.
I could see a surge in consumer purchases of spices. Black pepper, cinnimon and mustard sprinkled everywhere.
Since when is the right and responsibility to vote, "progressive crapola"? Appears you could use a little refresher in the US Constitution.
We the people elect representatives/senators who create the laws and confirm the USSC justices.
For purposes of STATE law, New Mexico differs based on the NM Supreme Court interpretation of the NM Sttae Constitution:
“39.-Warrantless searches of automobiles require a showing of exigent circumstances. In accordance with the principles underlying Article II, Section 10 and the cases over the last seven years interpreting that provision independently from its federal counterpart, we announce today that a warrantless search of an automobile and its contents requires a particularized showing of exigent circumstances. In State v. Copeland, the Court of Appeals defined exigent circumstances as “an emergency situation requiring swift action to prevent imminent danger to life or serious damage to property, or to forestall the imminent escape of a suspect or destruction of evidence.” 105 N.M. 27, 31, 727 P.2d 1342, 1346 (Ct.App.1986).
A warrantless search is valid where the officer reasonably has determined that exigent circumstances exist. A warrantless search is invalid if, in the court’s estimation, the officer’s judgment that exigent circumstances existed was not reasonable. The inquiry is an objective test, not a subjective one, into whether a reasonable, well-trained officer would have made the judgment this officer made. If reasonable people might differ about whether exigent circumstances existed, we defer to the officer’s good judgment. On appeal, we may review de novo the trial court’s determination of exigent circumstances.”
- See more at: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/nm-supreme-court/1069052.html#sthash.H67sT0np.dpuf
So you are correct, when referencing state law.
LOL! There are two organizations you must be proud to represent. If sniffer dogs are so inept, why are they used in search and rescue, explosives and bomb detection in both civil and military operations ?
Apparently you are a dips*** who has no clue about concepts of republican government.
When you run out of relevant things to post you resort to juvenile name calling. I had thought better of you than that.
The Constitution of the United States
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
Article I - The Legislative Branch Note
Section 1 - The Legislature
All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.
I swear, it's like talking to a cultist...they demand you accept their position on faith, when you oppose their position they say you have no facts, present them facts and they demand statistics, present statistics and they say you're part of a hate group.
Like I said, I don't care if I convince you, I'm informing the Freepers watching the steam come out of your ears. Thanks for pulling my plow, mule...lol
That's what doper LIEberTARDians are.
If sniffer dogs are so inept, why are they used in search and rescue, explosives and bomb detection in both civil and military operations ?
present statistics and they say you're part of a hate group.
Who is "they"?
Thanks for pulling my plow, mule
Fantasizing or just in a drug stupor, LIEberTARDian?
Where is the study? How many animals were involved? Why are your sources all LIEberTARDian? What have the results been of the suits brought forth that you have posted?
Unlikely? That sure is scientific, isn't it? LOL!
Why do you avoid answering the questions posed to you, LIE berTARDian?
And even funnier when you try to type like a badass.
I think you’ve got the adhesive tape on your Depends™ wound a little too tight; Poindexter. ;^)
You've yet to provide any evidence supporting that claim, LIEberTARDian. Are the questions posed to you too difficult?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.