Page 2 of 7 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 64

Thread: How do you feel about frug sniffing dogs being used to search your vehicle?

  1. #11
    Join Date
    Jun 2017
    Location
    Tennessee
    Posts
    346
    Feedback Score
    0
    The war on some drugs needs to end, we have lost so much of our rights and liberties over this BS its pathetic.

    A Society of Suspects: The War on Drugs and Civil Liberties

    https://www.cato.org/publications/po...ivil-liberties

    A quick Google search will give you hours of reading materials, studies and court cases showing that drug dogs are less reliable than actually guessing.

    Here is one such study.

    Legal challenge questions reliability of police dogs

    https://www.reviewjournal.com/crime/...f-police-dogs/

    In 2010, a team of researchers at the University of California, Davis set out to test the reliability of drug- and bomb-sniffing dogs.
    The team assembled 18 police dogs and their handlers and gave them a routine task: go through a room and sniff out the drugs and explosives.
    But there was a twist. The room was clean. No drugs, no explosives.

    In order to pass the test, the handlers and their dogs had to go through the room and detect nothing.
    But of 144 runs, that happened only 21 times, for a failure rate of 85 percent.

    Although drug-sniffing dogs are supposed to find drugs on their own, the researchers concluded that they were influenced by their handlers, and that’s what led to such a high failure rate.
    The reliability of drug dogs and their handlers is at the heart of a lawsuit filed in state district court by two Nevada Highway Patrol K-9 troopers and a consultant, who claim that the Metropolitan Police Department’s police dogs, and eventually NHP’s own dogs, were “trick ponies” that responded to their handlers’ cues, and therefore routinely violated citizens’ rights to lawful search under the Fourth Amendment.

    The lawsuit goes on to make a number of other accusations in its 104-page complaint: that the Metropolitan Police Department is a racketeering organization, that money seized by motorists was misappropriated by the Department of Public Safety, that the two troopers were subjected to harassment and intimidation by their agency.

    But what has defense attorneys and civil advocates taking notice are the allegations of illegal searches, which could call into question the seizure of millions of dollars from motorists on Nevada highways and jeopardize an untold number of criminal cases stemming from those stops.
    Washoe County Public Defender Jeremy Bosler said the lawsuit’s allegations are “definitely an issue of concern throughout the state.”

    But the case could also shine a light on the use and reliability of drug-sniffing dogs, an area of policing where there are no mandatory standards and little scientific evidence, experts say.

    POTENTIAL FOR POWER AND ABUSE

    The U.S. Supreme Court has given police “probable cause” to search your vehicle if a police dog detects drugs, typically by sitting, digging or barking.
    That is an extraordinary power – officers working without dogs need “a reasonable belief that a person has committed a crime” for such searches. Mere suspicion is not enough, and criminal cases resulting from searches that don’t meet the “probable cause” standard can be, and are, tossed out in court.

    When the Highway Patrol created its K-9 program in 2008, it contracted with Donn Yarnall to choose the dogs and train the troopers to handle them.
    Yarnall, who created and led the training of the Los Angeles Police Department’s K-9 program in the 1980s, wanted to create a program so reliable that courts and defense lawyers couldn’t challenge the legality of their searches, according to Ken McKenna, the Reno-based lawyer representing Yarnall and troopers Matt Moonin and Erik Lee in the lawsuit.

    “This was going to be his legacy that he was going to leave behind as to how a drug dog K-9 program is to be established across the country,” McKenna said.

    The dogs and their handlers were deployed along the freeways in Northern and Southern Nevada, believed to be corridors for drug traffickers shuttling drugs from California to the Midwest.
    They seemed to be a success. Within their first three years, the dogs helped troopers seize more than $5.3 million in cash, more than 1,000 pounds of marijuana, and dozens of pounds each of cocaine and methamphetamine, according to the lawsuit.
    But the troopers noticed abuses. The lawsuit claims that one fellow trooper would make stops in Arizona, out of his jurisdiction. Another profiled Hispanic motorists, checking license plates for Hispanic owners before pulling them over.
    And the abuses weren’t limited to their own department, they claim.

    Often the K-9 troopers were partnered with a drug task force that paired them with Las Vegas police narcotics detectives and that agency’s K-9 dogs. They would go to a FedEx sorting facility where, the troopers allege, Las Vegas police detectives took packages from a sorting belt and poked holes in them so their dogs could better sniff for drugs inside. In one case, a detective tore open a package and searched its contents.

    All of this was done without the consent of the owners of the packages, which would be illegal.

    After those allegations surfaced in a report last year by Dana Gentry, a producer for “Face to Face” on KSNV-TV, Channel 3, Las Vegas police investigated and ruled that the detectives’ actions were legal, but the detectives did not follow policy because they didn’t fill out required paperwork when drugs were not found.

    The troopers’ lawsuit also claims that the troopers witnessed Las Vegas police handlers abusing their dogs.
    “In certain incidents they resort to hanging and then kicking the dog to get it to release,” the lawsuit states. “Trooper Moonin has personally witnessed a Metro handler take his dog behind a car after missing a significant drug seizure and brutally kick his dog repeatedly.”

    ALLEGATIONS OF ‘TRICK PONIES’

    The abuses – of the dogs and the law – are a result of poor training by Las Vegas police, according to the lawsuit. Las Vegas police trained their dogs to be “trick ponies” that would respond to handlers’ cues when searching for drugs.
    That caused the dogs to become more interested in getting treats or toys when searching for drugs, they claim. The Highway Patrol dogs, on the other hand, were not rewarded when they signaled for drugs.
    McKenna said he has video proof of Las Vegas police handlers “cueing” their dogs. Two of those videos have been uploaded to YouTube.
    One, apparently from the dashboard camera of a Highway Patrol car, claims to show a Las Vegas police dog repeatedly walking past an ice chest with four pounds of metham*phetamine inside during a traffic stop. The handler, who knew the drugs were inside, eventually stops by the ice chest with the dog and gives it a toy, signaling that the dog was successful in finding the drugs.

    Las Vegas police declined to comment on the allegations of physical abuse and “cueing,” saying they couldn’t comment on pending litigation. But they said that all officers receive training to reflect updates to Fourth Amendment case law.
    Department of Public Safety spokeswoman Gail Powell dismissed the allegations, saying they were untrue and that the lawsuit was filed by “dis*gruntled” officers.

    FEW STUDIES AVAILABLE

    Despite the wide legal latitude police dogs are given, there are few studies showing how success*ful, or un*successful, they are at finding drugs in the field.
    But what does exist casts doubt on their reliability.
    About a month after the results of the UC Davis experiment were released, the Chicago Tribune published a study looking into three years of drug searches by suburban Illinois police departments.

    The study revealed that when dogs “alerted” officers to drugs, they were right 44 percent of the time. For Hispanic drivers, the rate was only 27 percent.
    Police told the Tribune that when drugs weren’t found, the dogs were detecting drug residue that was left in the vehicles.

    But that explanation is bogus, according to Lawrence Myers, an Auburn University professor who has studied police dogs for 30 years.

    While residual odors can cause false alerts, Myers said, too many dog handlers often use it as an excuse, making it all but impossible to assess accurately the reliability of the dog’s nose or the validity of a search.
    “Frankly, many times it’s a search warrant on a leash,” Myers said of the drug-sniffing police dog.

    Nationwide, the K-9 training industry lacks the cohesion and standards that would allow for objective measuring of police dogs’ reliability.
    Through the Institute for Biological Detection Systems at Auburn University, which Myers founded in 1989, he has researched the effectiveness of drug-sniffing dogs while calling for the industry to improve its training methods and accountability.
    For his efforts, he has been shunned by most in the industry, he said.

    Fearing they will be blackballed themselves, many K-9 handlers don’t speak out about problems they see in the industry, he said.
    “I’m afraid there is a conspiracy of silence” within the tight-knit police dog community, Myers said.

    The lawsuit illustrates that, he said, with the troopers who spoke of being shunned by fellow troopers and removed from their K-9 handling duties.
    Fellow researcher Lisa Lit noticed a split in the K-9 community after her UC Davis study was published.

    Many handlers were unhappy with the findings, and at least one organization called it invalid because of flaws in the methodology. They said it didn’t conform to normal testing standards for police dogs.
    Yet others handlers thanked her for the research and encouraged her to pursue more research, she said.

    However, she said she continues to have trouble getting K-9 teams to volunteer to help her with her research.

    CONSEQUENCES OF FALSE SIGNALS

    When police dogs signal for drugs, there can be con*sequences even when no drugs are found. Police can seize money they find in the car if they believe the money has ties to drugs.
    The legal standard is weak, lawyers say, and citizens who want their money back have to go through the court system, which can be costly. They often cite the 2009 case of a 22-year-old Indiana man pulled over for an unsafe lane change on an Indiana interstate.
    The man, who had won $50,000 from a car accident settle*ment, was found with $17,500 that he later claimed was for the purchase of a new car for his aunt. A drug dog alerted to drugs in his car – twice – and police seized his money. No drugs were ever found, and Indiana authorities held his money for more than a year.

    The American Civil Liberties Union of Nevada has received complaints from people concerned about the reliability of drug dogs, but Allen Lichtenstein, the organization’s general counsel, said his office doesn’t have the expertise to independently verify the claims.
    “If it can be shown that drug dogs are being used as a ruse to pretend to have probable cause, that would be a very serious constitutional violation,” Lichtenstein said.

    Regardless of whether that allegation is proven – the case could be settled before it ever reaches a jury – the claims by three experts against their own department is extraordinary and could jeopardize criminal cases.

    Las Vegas-based lawyer James Oronoz, who has defended people in drug cases, said the lawsuit could have a big ripple effect on the criminal defense community.

    “I think it’s probably in*cumbent upon any criminal defense attorney in town … to really take a look at those (cases) and examine the circumstances under which they (police) made their affidavits,” he said.
    McKenna, the troopers’ lawyer, said the case calls into question whether drug dogs should be given the kind of legal latitude they currently enjoy.

    “The idea that dogs are the reason to get probable cause for searches really needs to be evaluated by the courts, by the police departments utilizing them and by defense attorneys,” he said.
    Moonin and Lee resigned from the Highway Patrol’s K-9 program last year, amid concerns of legal abuses and claims that Department of Public Safety Director Chris Perry was dedicated to ruining the program. They’re still troopers. Yarnall is no longer a paid consultant for the agency.

    They declined to comment for this article through Mc*Kenna.

    “They’re just outraged that they were witness to citizens’ rights being violated by these dogs that are currently out there that are trained to alert on cue,” he said. “They just couldn’t be part of that, and they just think it needs to be exposed.”

  2. #12
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    suburbs of Philly Pa
    Posts
    5,164
    Feedback Score
    1 (100%)
    https://youtu.be/uFn7VjYksBM

    Couldn't help myself

    (I was asked to embed these but forget how to do it)

  3. #13
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    25,554
    Feedback Score
    2 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by 26 Inf View Post
    Sorry, but if they are telling you they can signal an alert, it is your responsibility as a citizen to report that fact to the chief, sheriff, etc.

    Why would anyone want to associate with corrupt officials or allow the behavior?
    Did you also want to know not all lawyers are honest? You probably don't want to know about judges. During contacts police often don't tell the truth for various reasons, it is usually a matter of technique than corruption.

    Also the idea that I would report members of the SO to Ken Jenne (Sheriff at the time) is kind of ironically laughable.
    It's hard to be a ACLU hating, philosophically Libertarian, socially liberal, fiscally conservative, scientifically grounded, agnostic, porn admiring gun owner who believes in self determination.

    Chuck, we miss ya man.

    كافر

  4. #14
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    Virginia
    Posts
    553
    Feedback Score
    0
    Letting them know you’re friendly at some point when it’s appropriate wouldn’t be a bad idea, that way any questions or verbal resistance won’t be seen as being difficult.

    Something like:

    “I certainly don’t mean to be difficult with you brother. I appreciate what you guys do, standing in the gap so that others can sleep soundly. But I have to tell you, I can’t agree to a search. Nothing to hide, just need to get where I’m going, people are going to be waiting on me.”

    A little respect and acknowledgement of what a hard job LE is goes a long way.

  5. #15
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Location
    The Sticks, TN
    Posts
    2,858
    Feedback Score
    2 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by SteyrAUG View Post
    Did you also want to know not all lawyers are honest? You probably don't want to know about judges. During contacts police often don't tell the truth for various reasons, it is usually a matter of technique than corruption.

    Also the idea that I would report members of the SO to Ken Jenne (Sheriff at the time) is kind of ironically laughable.
    Judges, lawyers and DA's are all one happy family. When GS court was in they'd all have lunch together. We'd come back from recess and somehow they would all have deals worked out so everyone could go home at 5pm. And yes, police are not obligated to tell you the truth in the midst of an investigation. Funny, but I remember for a time the word on the street was that if you asked an (undercover) officer if he was the police he had to tell you the truth or the case would be thrown out. Guys would ask and we'd be like "no way". Later when arrests were made they'd demand that charges be dropped because the police lied to them.
    Psalm 34:19

    To argue with a person who renounced the use of reason is like administering medicine to the dead. ~ Thomas Paine

  6. #16
    Join Date
    Jan 2018
    Posts
    3,527
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Mozart View Post
    Letting them know you’re friendly at some point when it’s appropriate wouldn’t be a bad idea, that way any questions or verbal resistance won’t be seen as being difficult.

    Something like:

    “I certainly don’t mean to be difficult with you brother. I appreciate what you guys do, standing in the gap so that others can sleep soundly. But I have to tell you, I can’t agree to a search. Nothing to hide, just need to get where I’m going, people are going to be waiting on me.”

    A little respect and acknowledgement of what a hard job LE is goes a long way.
    Seems a bogus search isn't worthy of respect. Also seems that job would be easier if that bad habit could be kicked.

  7. #17
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Posts
    219
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by SteyrAUG View Post
    Did you also want to know not all lawyers are honest? You probably don't want to know about judges. During contacts police often don't tell the truth for various reasons, it is usually a matter of technique than corruption.

    Also the idea that I would report members of the SO to Ken Jenne (Sheriff at the time) is kind of ironically laughable.
    A matter of technique, as opposed to corruption?

    Help me understand that, because if I lie to a LEO/FBI, Im gonna be in some serious trouble. Heaven forbid I dont remember being somewhere last year.

    As far as LEO dogs go. The day they gave them rights of a human being, was the day their responsibilities were fully corrupted.

  8. #18
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    25,554
    Feedback Score
    2 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by flenna View Post
    Judges, lawyers and DA's are all one happy family. When GS court was in they'd all have lunch together. We'd come back from recess and somehow they would all have deals worked out so everyone could go home at 5pm. And yes, police are not obligated to tell you the truth in the midst of an investigation. Funny, but I remember for a time the word on the street was that if you asked an (undercover) officer if he was the police he had to tell you the truth or the case would be thrown out. Guys would ask and we'd be like "no way". Later when arrests were made they'd demand that charges be dropped because the police lied to them.
    One time I had a cop tell me I was being pulled over because my vehicle fit the description of one recently used in a bank robbery. It was 100% nonsense and the fallout from it was kind of funny.

    Most of the tools used in police investigations are based on deception. The most hilarious one is "I can't help you if you don't help me." This is why experienced criminals say "lawyer" and nothing else.

    And I'm not trying to cast LEOs in a negative light, it's just the way of the world.

    Criminals have no rules.
    Law enforcement has some rules.
    Government makes up the rules as needed.

    At the end of the day the difference between criminals and government is a matter of perspective.
    It's hard to be a ACLU hating, philosophically Libertarian, socially liberal, fiscally conservative, scientifically grounded, agnostic, porn admiring gun owner who believes in self determination.

    Chuck, we miss ya man.

    كافر

  9. #19
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Hoosier State
    Posts
    257
    Feedback Score
    7 (100%)
    Retracted.
    Last edited by Boy Scout; 03-01-20 at 22:47. Reason: Not worth it.

  10. #20
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    25,554
    Feedback Score
    2 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by armtx77 View Post
    A matter of technique, as opposed to corruption?

    Help me understand that, because if I lie to a LEO/FBI, Im gonna be in some serious trouble. Heaven forbid I dont remember being somewhere last year.

    As far as LEO dogs go. The day they gave them rights of a human being, was the day their responsibilities were fully corrupted.
    The difference is if a cop is lying in order to find out where a kidnapped girl is currently located vs. if a cop is lying because he already decided he thinks you are guilty and is just trying to jam you up as best he can vs. if a cop is lying because the person he is talking to is a habitual known offender who he strongly believes is in possession of large quantities of drugs, weapons or other illegal items.

    If you are the father of the girl who was kidnapped, NOBODY is going to give a shit if somebody scams some dirtbag into believing the police already know more than they do and they just need the last details and are willing to give the dirtbag some consideration if he fills in the blanks.

    If you are the guy on the side of the road who really DID NOT do what a police officer obviously believes you did, you are going to care very much about the fact that a cop lied to you to confuse you and see if you would implicate yourself.

    But if the same cop is gaming a known gang banger / drug dealer and manages to get the guy to consent to a search or otherwise implicate himself and he's sitting on a trunk full of drugs, guns and other illegals shit...well he's probably the only one who cares.

    When you talk to police officers and it is in relation to a possible serious crime, they really aren't trying to help you, they are mostly deciding if you meet the criteria to be arrested or not.

    And yeah, you can bet when you are dealing with the FBI, it will not be a level playing field. This is nothing new.
    It's hard to be a ACLU hating, philosophically Libertarian, socially liberal, fiscally conservative, scientifically grounded, agnostic, porn admiring gun owner who believes in self determination.

    Chuck, we miss ya man.

    كافر

Page 2 of 7 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •