The Washington Post states that multiple studies have found that drug-dogs have high error rates. Some analyses suggest the dogs are correct around 50 percent of the time. This places their accuracy as about the same as a coin toss.
The U. S. Last week, the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit made an alarming decision regarding drug dogs. U. S. v. The federal courts have repeatedly refused to consider the possibility that police departments may be using the dogs to justify illegal searches, or at the very least that police agencies aren’t making sure the dogs are being trained to reduce the possibility, even though that would be simple to do. Bentley is just the latest example of this.
The issue with drug-sniffing dogs isn’t that they can’t detect drugs; rather, it’s that we’ve bred domestic dogs with a trait that supersedes that ability—a desire to understand us and please us. A drug dog will simply read its handler’s body language and confirm their suspicions about who is and isn’t hiding drugs if they aren’t specifically trained to make up for this. Tests on K9 units have confirmed this, demonstrating that controlled tests intended to trick handlers are much more likely to cause false alerts than controlled tests intended to trick the dogs. Mine-sniffing dogs tend to be more accurate than their drug-sniffing cousins, which further proves the point that handlers have a strong incentive for the dogs to find mines accurately. Handlers not only have fewer preconceptions about where mines are located, but they also have fewer preconceptions about where drugs are hidden. However, even here, issues with the dog-handler relationship can arise, which is why some detection experts are turning to rats.
The issue here is that the Fourth Amendment is meant to prevent invasive searches based solely on a government official’s suspicion. Unfortunately, the way the U. S. The Supreme Court’s decision on this matter not only fails to address the issue, but it also provides police agencies with a compelling reason to prevent drug dogs from being trained to act independently of their handlers’ suspicions. A dog prone to false alerts will result in more searches, which will increase the chances of discovering and seizing money and other valuables in accordance with asset forfeiture laws. In fact, even if no drugs are found, a drug dog’s alert is frequently used as proof of drug activity, allowing police to seize money, vehicles, and other property from drivers. For instance, dog trainers I spoke with said that drug dogs could be trained to alert only when detectable amounts of a drug were present and to disregard “remnant” or “trace” alerts that don’t warrant arrest. However, according to these trainers, police departments do not want dogs that have been trained to ignore odor remnants because any alert is a permission to conduct a more extensive search. Advertisement.
In Florida v. U.S., the Supreme Court made matters worse in 2013. Harris. Regardless of the reputation of the certifying organization, regardless of whether that organization recognizes and values the importance of training dogs to disregard their handlers’ suspicions, and regardless of the dog’s performance in the real world, the court in that case unanimously decided that mere certification of a drug dog was enough to establish a presumption that a drug dog is reliable.
In U. S. v. Bentley, it is clear how detrimental the Harris decision was. Lex had a 93 percent alert rate when searching Bentley’s vehicle for drugs. In other words, 93% of the time when Lex was asked to search a car, he alerted. He was basically a probable cause generator. His success rate was much lower, at 59 percent. That is, only six of the ten times Lex predicted the police would find drugs actually happened. Therefore, a thorough roadside search that was conducted on four out of every ten people that Lex alerted to turned up nothing illegal.
It gets worse. Even a dog that was initially well-trained can develop bad habits once it is out in the field. This is exactly what was happening with Lex. Lex’s handler rewards the dog every time he alerts, whether or not that alert is accurate, it turns out. Lex isn’t being compensated for separating innocent from guilty drivers. Every time he is called to duty, he is receiving training to give the go-ahead for a search.
All of this concerned the Seventh Circuit, which even acknowledged that the reward policy was “a terrible way to promote accurate detection.” However, the three-judge panel that heard the case concluded that none of this was sufficient to constitute a Fourth Amendment violation. The opinion notes that the dog had passed tests in “controlled settings,” as the Supreme Court instructed in Harris, and it cited evidence demonstrating the dog’s dependability. But that testimony came from the dog’s handler. And the significance of those tests conducted in controlled environments is not further explained. Did they include tests meant to deceive the handler as well as tests meant to deceive the dog? Were they conducted by the police department or by the handler?
The leader of the organization that trained the dog also gave testimony regarding the caliber of training done by his team, but of course he’d say that Concerned about Lex’s high alert rate, relatively low accuracy rate, and the fact that it had actually failed “two simulated vehicle searches,” he also voiced his concern about these issues. ”Advertisement.
However, the opinion notes that the Seventh Circuit previously found no issue with a drug dog that had a 62 percent accuracy rate. Lex’s was only slightly lower. Moreover, the court notes that the U. S. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals approved using a canine with a success rate of only 43%, or less accurate than a coin toss. This even lower figure is consistent with research conducted in 2011 by the Chicago Tribune on suburban Chicago police dogs, which revealed a 44 percent success rate. The accuracy rate fell to just 27% with Latino drivers, according to that review’s findings—further proof that the dogs are merely reflecting the prejudices and preconceptions of their handlers. Other studies have revealed up to 80% of false positive results. With such low success rates, it is difficult to avoid the conclusion that drug dogs are essentially “search warrants on a leash” rather than tools to identify probable causes. ”.
In Bentley, it turns out that the dog was correct. The suspect was discovered to be carrying a sizable quantity of cocaine. But since they stand to lose much more, those who are guilty frequently file the precedent-setting appeals. No arrest will result from a false drug dog alert that turns up nothing. The victim would have to file a civil rights lawsuit to convince a judge that the search was unlawful. That’s a lot of trouble and expense for someone to go through in order to receive compensation for an unjustified 45-minute roadside search. And that is presuming they are able to find a lawyer who will take the case. Civil rights lawsuits are very challenging to win and take a very long time to resolve.
At worst, a false alert could result in the illegal seizure of a driver’s money, vehicle, or other belongings. The driver wants his money back, so there is an added incentive to go to court in this situation. But here too, other incentives cut against legal action. First of all, the expense of hiring a lawyer and attending court can frequently be greater than the value of the property that was seized. It can also take months, sometimes years. Even if a driver is successful in having his property returned, it will take a significant amount of work, additional legal fees, and risk of failure to convince the courts that the stop itself violated the constitution. Most people are just happy to have their property back. Advertisement.
The idea here is that it might be tempting to ignore the unfairness of this decision: Perhaps the dog was just a ruse to allow police to search this man, but that search turned up a massive amount of cocaine. What’s the problem?.
The issue is that this decision gives police departments in the Seventh Circuit broad discretion to circumvent the Fourth Amendment by using drug dogs. And that affects everyone, not just drug dealers. That increases the potential for forfeiture and increases the likelihood of the corruption and legalized highway robbery that have been frequently reported over the past few years. A roadside search can be embarrassing and time-consuming even if no property is taken. Typically, the police will search everything you own, including your pockets, purses, bags, and so forth. Sometimes they’ll tear out the upholstery of your vehicle. They’ll scatter your belongings along the side of the highway. Advertisement.
When it comes to drug dog accuracy, the Bentley opinion warns against a “race to the bottom,” but it’s difficult to avoid the impression that we’ve already arrived there. Keep in mind that the police only called Lex out when they believed someone was in possession of drugs. If police officers are even remotely adept at spotting drug runners, we should anticipate that a sizable portion of stops where the drug dog is activated will result in the production of illicit drugs. It’s actually considerably worse than a coin toss if the drug dog continues to falsely accuse four out of every ten individuals. Given Lex’s overall alert rate of 93%, it is clear that the dog is not at all filtering out innocent bystanders.
Consider the Fourth Circuit drug dog that falsely accused almost six out of ten people, subjecting more than half of the drivers it sniffs to an illegal search. First off, this indicates that the local police there were already not very good at spotting potential drug offenders. But at the very least, we can assume that the local law enforcement did a good enough job that a significant portion of drug offenders will be among the drivers in the pool of people who receive a dog sniff. (I believe that even the typical citizen could accomplish this.) Considering that, it’s difficult to imagine a drug dog performing significantly worse than a false alert rate of 60%. As the Chicago Tribune discovered with Latino drivers in the suburbs, to achieve a false alert rate of 70% or higher, you practically have to train the dog to make mistakes.
Drug dog sniffs were first approved by the Supreme Court because, when done correctly, the dog’s highly developed sense of smell can detect drugs and their absence with amazing precision. But that caveat — when used properly — is critical. Descriptors like “finely tuned” and “incredible precision” no longer apply if a drug dog isn’t killing any innocent people and is instead validating police suspicions nine out of ten times, leading to searches in which up to half or more of the suspects are innocent.
And neither does the Fourth Amendment. Loading. TOP STORIESVoices Across AmericaWriters from all over the country offering their opinions on stories in the news on a national level
Save citation to file Format:
Name your collection: Name must be less than 100 characters Choose a collection: Unable to load your collection due to an error
Unable to load your delegates due to an error
The study found that while terriers, which are frequently used due to their small size, performed poorly, German Shepherds were the top narc dog. Additionally, dogs performed better indoors than outdoors, and room familiarity had no discernible effect. The most challenging tasks for Man’s Best Friend were finding drugs outside or inside of a car; these dogs were only 58% accurate when searching inside of a car.
According to studies on the effectiveness of drug-sniffing dogs, some elements, such as breed and environment, can significantly reduce the performance of dogs recruited to fight drugs.
In relating a tale about being stopped by police in 1994 while trafficking drugs, Mr. Jay-Z, real name Shawn Carter, recalls a conversation in which he informed the racial profiling officer that he did not consent to a search of his car. The police officer then requests a drug that detects drugs, and that dog now becomes one of Mr. Carter’s 99 problems. But there was no guarantee that a nosy dog would discover Hova’s drugs.
Police dogs and their effectiveness are frequently viewed as highly reliable and almost infallible. Agencies all over the world rely on K9s’ keen sense of smell to find hidden drugs because they are immune to racial and other biases. Dogs are still the best tool for the job, according to the study’s researchers, even though Fido isn’t perfect.
Breed and environment are two elements that can significantly affect how well-trained dogs perform in the fight against drugs.
Dogs have excellent senses and can detect objects or peoples smells 20 km away under perfect conditions. Sniffing dogs are trained to be even more effective and a lot sharper. As a result, they have been used for police work and protection.
One of the benefits of a drug-sniffing dog is that it can accurately detect threats and illegal substances, giving you peace of mind and increasing security in your home or place of business.
The sense of security a sniffing dog provides at home or at work is an advantage. You will have access to allies who can defend, detect, and deter in addition to having a pet.
Drug sniffing or drug-detecting dogs are amazing, well-trained animals. Please read these fascinating facts about drug-detecting dogs; you’ll be amazed.
FAQ
How good are drug sniffer dogs?
A sniffer dog is used in many security operations because their sense of smell is 2,000 times stronger and 50 times more sensitive than a human’s.
How far can sniffer dogs smell drugs?
Dogs have keen senses and, in ideal circumstances, can detect objects or people’s smells from a distance of 20 km. Sniffing dogs are trained to be much more skilled and effective. They have thus been employed in both police work and protection.
Can sniffer dogs smell drugs inside you?
Because a dog’s sense of smell is thought to be 10,000 to 100,000 times better than a human’s, any attempts you make to conceal drugs will likely be detected by a well-trained detection dog.