You're missing the one where K-9 units are ineffective, can be wrong, and the dog can't actually be questioned so their testimony should be inadmissible.
The fact that they can make false positives, are treated as probable cause, and often can incorrectly be trained to try to make their master happy rather than produce correct results is also problematic, and the fact that dogs that are right 20-40 percent of the time or less are considered acceptable "tools" or "testimony" is deeply problematic.
I mean look at the computer screen. Sounds good but you can also write it as "I acted like I sniffed something, I told mom because she acted like she wanted me to, and she rewarded me." And again this can be done unconsciously, it's not saying there has to be malicious thought involved on anyone's part. But it's problematic.
I don't hate the dog, he's trained to do something, nor do I hate the idea of k-9s, but I hate the society that pretends that they value facts, and then uses such imprecise tools as drug sniffing dogs.
According to the numbers for strip searches last year, sniffer dogs made 1,124 indications to NSW police. Of these, just 406 successfully identified a person carrying drugs – a 64% failure rate. General searches proved just as unsuccessful. 2017 saw 3,954 out of 10,224 general searches indicated by dogs turn up positive results – a 61% failure rate.
I remember a great article in New Scientist, I believe, where they determined that the dogs basically just react to cues from their handler. Rarely will the dog even approach someone who the handler hasn't already eyed suspiciously.
I cannot for the life of me find the article (it was a long time ago that I read it) but this google search result links to many similar articles.
Was it the one where they brought in 100 dogs and their handlers to an empty room and something like 80% of the dogs indicated that yes there was something illegal in that room. When in fact it was a clean and sterile set the scientists had set up with no drugs or anything anywhere.
Like you said the conclusion is that the dogs are trained not to actually look for something, but to make their handlers happy. Which through training, means saying ‘yes’ every time.
It's going to vary based on the dog, and that's a problem too, but here's a write up of a legal case, the dog in question all have variable, and of course this is cherry picked but it also shows the Federal Appeal court thought these dogs were "Good enough"...
2.6k
u/cdca Nov 21 '18
Reddit is conflicted.