TexasCHLforum.com

http://thefreethoughtproject.com/court- ... nal-drugs/

It was revealed that Lex, the drug dog in question, signaled for drugs 93% of the time, even when there were no drugs present. These findings show that dog sniffs are not accurate and are simply used as a tool to justify a full police search. The findings also indicated that Lex was incorrect roughly 40% of the time.

“Lex’s overall accuracy rate … is not much better than a coin flip,” the ruling stated.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nati ... story.html

What? But the War on drugz is for the childrens!

I learned from our local Police Department, that K-9 (sniffing dogs has to go through a certification process).
In the demonstration at Police Citizens Academy, The sniffing K-9 dogs were amazing and accurate. Also as for defense dog duties they were controllable and obedient to commands (issued in German). One thing, I noted when dog attacked the suspect, getting him off was a bit problematic ( the handler has to yell many times to get the dog attention, understandable as the dog was doing a serious business )

Shocking that a drug dog in Illinois is alerting so often. It's almost like they want an excuse to search every car they can, but that can't be right...

Dog must be broken.

EDIT: Please don't interpret this as anti cop. It's anti Illinois.

or the handler is causing the dog to alert on purpose even if the dog doesn't hit for real(yea cops would NEVER lie their buts off to get what they want)

"The district judge did approve this warrant...."

WOW. A judge approved a warrant to search a vehicle that had already been torn apart, and another one to search a man that had already been stripped naked and nothing found. FRIGHTENING.

I have been told for many years and actually watched a drug dog sniff it out that almost every bill within our currency that is in circulation has some drug residue on it.

Our local PD had an exhibition in which they had 8 people from the audience put in $1 bill. They would take 3 of the bills and wash them off with soap and water and dry with a hair drier. Then they recorded the serial numbers of the cleaned bills, and scattered all of the bills around on the floor. They then brought in the newest drug dog and put him to work. He was 5 for 5 picking the "dirty" bills. The LEO then tested each "dirty" bill and found small trace amounts of drugs on each.

JP171 wrote:or the handler is causing the dog to alert on purpose even if the dog doesn't hit for real(yea cops would NEVER lie their buts off to get what they want)

This is what I believe to be the case.

One of my professors brought in his dog at the end of the semester. He had all of us exit the classroom and he hid a training device for the dog to search. Once we were all back in, he told the dog, "Go find dope." and the dog found the device rather quickly.

With all the training provided for the dogs, I just don't believe a 40% inaccuracy rate.

Mick22 wrote:

JP171 wrote:or the handler is causing the dog to alert on purpose even if the dog doesn't hit for real(yea cops would NEVER lie their buts off to get what they want)

This is what I believe to be the case.

One of my professors brought in his dog at the end of the semester. He had all of us exit the classroom and he hid a training device for the dog to search. Once we were all back in, he told the dog, "Go find dope." and the dog found the device rather quickly.

With all the training provided for the dogs, I just don't believe a 40% inaccuracy rate.

So the evidence before the court was wrong or what? The 40% inaccuracy rate was determined by evidence presented in a criminal trial in Federal Court.

It's not the dogs you have to worry about.

[waves hand]These are not the drugs you are looking for.[/waves hand]

The dogs aren't the problem... its the human element... I watched a documentary/expose about this, and the dog responds to signals from the handler and gives a false alert. Some of the officers were doing it subconsciously or unintentionally - while several officers had learned to tap or say a specific word to the dog to get it to alert when they wanted it to.

You have to remember, to the dogs, this is fun and play. They want to please and so with a bad handler can learn or be taught bad habits/tricks.

VMI77 wrote:

Mick22 wrote:

JP171 wrote:or the handler is causing the dog to alert on purpose even if the dog doesn't hit for real(yea cops would NEVER lie their buts off to get what they want)

This is what I believe to be the case.

One of my professors brought in his dog at the end of the semester. He had all of us exit the classroom and he hid a training device for the dog to search. Once we were all back in, he told the dog, "Go find dope." and the dog found the device rather quickly.

With all the training provided for the dogs, I just don't believe a 40% inaccuracy rate.

So the evidence before the court was wrong or what? The 40% inaccuracy rate was determined by evidence presented in a criminal trial in Federal Court.

The evidence is correct, however, it puts all the blame on the dog. I believe the handler needs to be investigated as well.

VMI77 wrote:

Mick22 wrote:

JP171 wrote:or the handler is causing the dog to alert on purpose even if the dog doesn't hit for real(yea cops would NEVER lie their buts off to get what they want)

This is what I believe to be the case.

One of my professors brought in his dog at the end of the semester. He had all of us exit the classroom and he hid a training device for the dog to search. Once we were all back in, he told the dog, "Go find dope." and the dog found the device rather quickly.

With all the training provided for the dogs, I just don't believe a 40% inaccuracy rate.

So the evidence before the court was wrong or what? The 40% inaccuracy rate was determined by evidence presented in a criminal trial in Federal Court.

I do not know exactly how the evidence was presented or what that evidence entailed. With that said, it is possible that the evidence wasn't necessarily wrong, but may have been presented poorly. It is important to know whether that 40% inaccuracy claim comes from a controlled test, in which the K9s failed, or if the number comes from real world events in which 40% of the examined cases yielded no drugs. If it is the former, then it can be reasonably concluded that K9s should not be used for such purposes. However, if it is the later, then there are too many uncontrolled variables, such as the K9 picking up cues from the handler, to conclude that K9s themselves are inaccurate.

I've always heard that dishonest cops can cause their dogs to alert. The dogs that are the best drug sniffers are the ones who love to find their ball. Sometimes, during training, their ball will be produced when they find drugs to reinforce it. It's a game to them. When they are looking for drugs, they are playing that same game. Police officers (like I said, dishonest ones) can signal to the dog, saying "get it!" or something similar to make them think their "ball" is inside the car and thus will alert.

Disclaimer: Don't take this post as LEO-bashing as that is not its intention.