Supreme Court Says Police Don't Have To Prove Dog Training

[Purveyor]

WASHINGTON—Police don't have to extensively document and log the work of drug-sniffing dogs in the field to be able to use the results of their work in court, the Supreme Court ruled on Tuesday.

Instead, Justice Elena Kagan wrote for a unanimous court, courts should apply the same tests to dog sniffs they do when they look at other issues of whether police have probable cause to take an action.

"The question —similar to every inquiry into probable cause—is whether all the facts surrounding a dog's alert, viewed through the lens of common sense, would make a reasonably prudent person think that a search would reveal contraband or evidence of a crime," Kagan said. "A sniff is up to snuff when it meets that test."

The court's ruling overturns a decision by the Florida Supreme Court in the case of Aldo, a drug-sniffing police dog used by the Liberty County sheriff.

MORE...

http://www.twincities.com/ci_22619847/court-says-police-dont-have-prove-dog-training

[MadHound]

1. So the Supreme Court just gave cops the right to toss your car or house without probable cause,

I don't about the rest of you, but it is fairly well known around here that drug dogs aren't taught to actually find drugs, but to simply sit on a silent, fairly inconspicuous command.

That way the cops can claim probable cause and toss your car or house. There have been untold numbers of incidents where the supposed drug dog has sat, the car has been tossed, and nothing was found.

This just formalizes that practice.

[appal_jack]

3. & Kagan the author...

Who, exactly, is in the side of civil liberties in our government?

This decision is inexcusable, unconstitutional, unreasonable, and tyrannical. But since the Supreme Court has declared it so, it is also the law of the land.

-app

[el_bryanto]

4. that's a pretty strong accusation

Can you point me to evidence to support your claim that Drug Sniffing dogs are essentially fraudulent?

Bryant

[MadHound]

5. Here is a whole bunch, take your choice,

http://search.yahoo.com/search;_ylt=AlYrJpA.34e90G4d9LB.sgSbvZx4?p=drug+sniffing+dogs+false+alerts&toggle=1&cop=mss&ei=UTF-8&fr=yfp-t-701

It is a fairly well known practice, surreptitiously signal the dog to alert, then toss the car or the house. I could name police departments here in Missouri where that practice is pretty common, but that could get me in trouble here.

[Orrex]

13. If that's true, then the current ruling wouldn't have any effect upon the practice

Any dog-handler can claim that the dog "alerted" on something, and how the hell can I possibly dispute it? If I object, the prosecution will immediately ask "Did you consult an expert dog handler at the scene?"

And when I say "no," I'm going to look ridiculous.


There is plenty to dispute about over-reaching police practices, but this ruling isn't anywhere near the top of the list.

[Mojorabbit]

6. I saw a news report on this a long time ago, maybe 60 minutes

and they made this case. If I feel better later I will try to find it.

[Blue_Tires]

8. I remember a small scandal with the Prince George's (MD) cops

where they contracted a trainer for I think $60,000 to train all their new dogs to sniff drugs...The dogs ended up even testing WORSE on the sniff tests than completely untrained dogs...

[Light House]

2. Real nice.

Just keep chipping away at the 4th Amendment. I'm surprised that the liberal wing went along with this.

Those "sniff" tests should be held to a higher standard because a dog could easily alert on something other than contraband, giving the police all the probable cause or reasonable suspicion they need.

Another thing, how do we, as citizens, know that the police are telling the truth when they say the dog "alerted"?
I guess we should trust them, it's not like they've lied, planted false evidence, beaten innocent people.
Oh, wait a minute, that has actually happened.

[dsc]

7. reporter needs to learn to write

Instead of depending on police performance logs—"Errors may abound in such records," Kagan noted—standard training and certification records from the dog's training are much more reliable, she said.

"The better measure of a dog's reliability thus comes away from the field, in controlled testing environments," she said. "For that reason, evidence of a dog's satisfactory performance in a certification or training program can itself provide sufficient reason to trust his alert."

Defendants can challenge that evidence, Kagan said, by asserting for example that the training was too lax or the certification methods faulty. But "if the state has produced proof from controlled settings that a dog performs reliably in detecting drugs, and the defendant has not contested that showing, then the court should find probable cause," she said.

end of quote

that summary was highly misleading given these paragraphs further down.

[sorefeet]

9. TWICE the dogs sniffed my truck

at the refinery, both times I had pot in the truck the dogs did not alert. I always carried pot. But during the search the rent a cop found a full can of beer stuck under the seat for who knows how long,so then they wanted to drug test me, NOT a breath test for booze. I told them to get fucked and lost my job for refusal to take a piss test. Went to work the next day for another refinery. Ironically they flagged a guy around me while they were harassing me and that guy had a loaded rifle, another rifle and a box of shells that he claims he forgot after hunting. The rent a cop never knew that either. These dog checks are a harassment and a false sense of security.

[Light House]

10. Another bone of contention I have with the SC

is their ruling that those DUI check points are constitutional when clearly they violate the 4th Amendment.

Slowly but surely, we are losing our civil liberties and I weep for this country because most Americans either don't see it happening or think that more security is preferable to freedom or just don't give a shit.

[unblock]

11. well it makes sense. since the dog training doesn't make them any better at it, why document it?

[Gorp]

12. Frankly I agree. I had a blood hound track me down by my cell phone.

Five of us (volunteers) entered the field for a blood hound demonstration. We filed out (single file, mind you) to another part of the field and spread out. The hound took a few sniffs of my cell phone and in very short order identified who I was. That's instinct for them. They don't need to be certified. It's just what they do.

I had an airport cop use a golden to check me out in Toronto because I looked like a hippie and the cop obviously thought I "profiled" for someone who might be holding. The dog didn't alert (and that's because I wasn't carrying - this was long after I gave up pot).

People come to the door all the time. I rely on the dogs' reactions to gauge trustworthiness of the outsider. Then again, I've got two dogs with sharp teeth to back me up if I'm wrong in my assessment.

Dogs have an accuteness in their nasal capabilities that we can't even comprehend. There's no human technology that can even come close to what a dog can do. I'll trust the dog over a human or a machine any day.

The ruling is correct. All dogs know when something is amiss. It's instinct. If a dog says something is a problem, it's a problem. It isn't anymore complicated than that. CATS on the other hand...

[Purveyor]

14. I agree with your assessment but I also know that a dog can be trained to 'alert on cue' without

it not being due to a 'hit on scent'. I never question a dogs scenting capabilities however I do question their 'handlers' intent.

[Gorp]

15. Agreed. But I don't think that is common in working dogs.

I'll send you a PM.