Drug-sniffing dogs can be used at traffic stops, high court rules

"Scott en Aztlán" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 30 Jan 2005 20:59:40 GMT, "jaybird" > wrote:
>
>>> Bull. The dog alerts to what ever the cop handling it wants you to think
>>> that it is alerting to regardless of what the dog is smelling so that he
>>> can intimidate you into giving up your constitutional rights.
>>
>>Nope, not the way it works. A dog can't certify if it just alerts to
>>anything the handler wants it to.
>
> Tell us more about the certification process. Specifically, what
> safeguards are in place to prevent a handler from simply simulating
> the desired results by only telling the dog to alert on the real drugs
> during the certification test?

But the dog _is_ supposed to alert only on the real drugs.

--
---
jaybird
---
I am not the cause of your problems.
My actions are the result of your actions.
Your life is not my fault.

On Tue, 01 Feb 2005 21:48:27 GMT, "jaybird" > wrote:

>
>"Scott en Aztlán" > wrote in message
.. .
>> On Sun, 30 Jan 2005 20:59:40 GMT, "jaybird" > wrote:
>>
>>>> Bull. The dog alerts to what ever the cop handling it wants you to think
>>>> that it is alerting to regardless of what the dog is smelling so that he
>>>> can intimidate you into giving up your constitutional rights.
>>>
>>>Nope, not the way it works. A dog can't certify if it just alerts to
>>>anything the handler wants it to.
>>
>> Tell us more about the certification process. Specifically, what
>> safeguards are in place to prevent a handler from simply simulating
>> the desired results by only telling the dog to alert on the real drugs
>> during the certification test?
>
>But the dog _is_ supposed to alert only on the real drugs.

So tell us about the certification process.

Is it double-blind?

Does the handler and those administering the certification know the
drugs are there?

jaybird wrote:

> "Scott en Aztlán" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>On Sun, 30 Jan 2005 20:59:40 GMT, "jaybird" > wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>Bull. The dog alerts to what ever the cop handling it wants you to think
>>>>that it is alerting to regardless of what the dog is smelling so that he
>>>>can intimidate you into giving up your constitutional rights.
>>>
>>>Nope, not the way it works. A dog can't certify if it just alerts to
>>>anything the handler wants it to.
>>
>>Tell us more about the certification process. Specifically, what
>>safeguards are in place to prevent a handler from simply simulating
>>the desired results by only telling the dog to alert on the real drugs
>>during the certification test?
>
>
> But the dog _is_ supposed to alert only on the real drugs.
>

How can you prove that? can you *prove* that the dog won't do the same
exact alert upon a subtle command from its handler?

nate

--
replace "fly" with "com" to reply.
http://home.comcast.net/~njnagel

"Olaf Gustafson" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 01 Feb 2005 21:48:27 GMT, "jaybird" > wrote:
>
>>
>>"Scott en Aztlán" > wrote in message
. ..
>>> On Sun, 30 Jan 2005 20:59:40 GMT, "jaybird" > wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Bull. The dog alerts to what ever the cop handling it wants you to
>>>>> think
>>>>> that it is alerting to regardless of what the dog is smelling so that
>>>>> he
>>>>> can intimidate you into giving up your constitutional rights.
>>>>
>>>>Nope, not the way it works. A dog can't certify if it just alerts to
>>>>anything the handler wants it to.
>>>
>>> Tell us more about the certification process. Specifically, what
>>> safeguards are in place to prevent a handler from simply simulating
>>> the desired results by only telling the dog to alert on the real drugs
>>> during the certification test?
>>
>>But the dog _is_ supposed to alert only on the real drugs.
>
> So tell us about the certification process.
>
> Is it double-blind?
>
> Does the handler and those administering the certification know the
> drugs are there?

The certifying officials know where the drugs are because they place them
there. The handlers do not know where, and have to let the dogs find the
drugs.

--
---
jaybird
---
I am not the cause of your problems.
My actions are the result of your actions.
Your life is not my fault.

"Nate Nagel" > wrote in message
...
> jaybird wrote:
>
>> "Scott en Aztlán" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>>>On Sun, 30 Jan 2005 20:59:40 GMT, "jaybird" > wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>>Bull. The dog alerts to what ever the cop handling it wants you to
>>>>>think
>>>>>that it is alerting to regardless of what the dog is smelling so that
>>>>>he
>>>>>can intimidate you into giving up your constitutional rights.
>>>>
>>>>Nope, not the way it works. A dog can't certify if it just alerts to
>>>>anything the handler wants it to.
>>>
>>>Tell us more about the certification process. Specifically, what
>>>safeguards are in place to prevent a handler from simply simulating
>>>the desired results by only telling the dog to alert on the real drugs
>>>during the certification test?
>>
>>
>> But the dog _is_ supposed to alert only on the real drugs.
>>
>
> How can you prove that? can you *prove* that the dog won't do the same
> exact alert upon a subtle command from its handler?

Sure, but the point is to do the opposite. There is no reason to have a dog
alert where not contraband is at for different reasons. For one and the
most obvious, I don't want to waste my time searching something if there is
nothing there to find. Second, a handler may get in his mind where he
thinks contraband might be and inadvertantly cause the dog to alert, failing
certification. There are so many different scenarios that the dogs have to
go through during certification that to have a dog paying attention to
anything other than the odor will cause the dog to false alert and fail.
The less stimulus from the handler the better.

--
---
jaybird
---
I am not the cause of your problems.
My actions are the result of your actions.
Your life is not my fault.

"Matthew Russotto" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> jaybird > wrote:
>>
>>
>>That's pretty funny, and defense attorneys have tried using that line too,
>>to no avail. The dogs are trained to alert to the presence of narcotics,
>>not hamburgers. The dogs are trained only to give an alert on drugs,
>>nothing else. We're not talking about Fifi and Fido lying around your
>>house.
>
> And we have only the cops' word for this. They could be trained to
> alert whenever the cop mutters "alert" under his breath.

Nope... makes the dog unreliable and not meet case law established criteria.

--
---
jaybird
---
I am not the cause of your problems.
My actions are the result of your actions.
Your life is not my fault.

jaybird wrote:

> "Nate Nagel" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>jaybird wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"Scott en Aztlán" > wrote in message
...
>>>
>>>
>>>>On Sun, 30 Jan 2005 20:59:40 GMT, "jaybird" > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>Bull. The dog alerts to what ever the cop handling it wants you to
>>>>>>think
>>>>>>that it is alerting to regardless of what the dog is smelling so that
>>>>>>he
>>>>>>can intimidate you into giving up your constitutional rights.
>>>>>
>>>>>Nope, not the way it works. A dog can't certify if it just alerts to
>>>>>anything the handler wants it to.
>>>>
>>>>Tell us more about the certification process. Specifically, what
>>>>safeguards are in place to prevent a handler from simply simulating
>>>>the desired results by only telling the dog to alert on the real drugs
>>>>during the certification test?
>>>
>>>
>>>But the dog _is_ supposed to alert only on the real drugs.
>>>
>>
>>How can you prove that? can you *prove* that the dog won't do the same
>>exact alert upon a subtle command from its handler?
>
>
> Sure, but the point is to do the opposite. There is no reason to have a dog
> alert where not contraband is at for different reasons. For one and the
> most obvious, I don't want to waste my time searching something if there is
> nothing there to find.

Sure there are, like wanting to search a car for completely different
reasons (suspicion of, say, carrying weapons or other illegal but
non-narcotic items, or just to give someone a hard time for mouthing off
- not that I'm entirely opposed to the last, but it's still illegal)

> Second, a handler may get in his mind where he
> thinks contraband might be and inadvertantly cause the dog to alert, failing
> certification. There are so many different scenarios that the dogs have to
> go through during certification that to have a dog paying attention to
> anything other than the odor will cause the dog to false alert and fail.
> The less stimulus from the handler the better.
>

I believe what you say but that still does not preclude a handler from
training a dog to alert on command and still have the dog pass its
certification test.

nate

--
replace "fly" with "com" to reply.
http://home.comcast.net/~njnagel

"Nate Nagel" > wrote in message
...
> jaybird wrote:
>
>> "Nate Nagel" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>>>jaybird wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>"Scott en Aztlán" > wrote in message
m...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>On Sun, 30 Jan 2005 20:59:40 GMT, "jaybird" > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>Bull. The dog alerts to what ever the cop handling it wants you to
>>>>>>>think
>>>>>>>that it is alerting to regardless of what the dog is smelling so that
>>>>>>>he
>>>>>>>can intimidate you into giving up your constitutional rights.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Nope, not the way it works. A dog can't certify if it just alerts to
>>>>>>anything the handler wants it to.
>>>>>
>>>>>Tell us more about the certification process. Specifically, what
>>>>>safeguards are in place to prevent a handler from simply simulating
>>>>>the desired results by only telling the dog to alert on the real drugs
>>>>>during the certification test?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>But the dog _is_ supposed to alert only on the real drugs.
>>>>
>>>
>>>How can you prove that? can you *prove* that the dog won't do the same
>>>exact alert upon a subtle command from its handler?
>>
>>
>> Sure, but the point is to do the opposite. There is no reason to have a
>> dog alert where not contraband is at for different reasons. For one and
>> the most obvious, I don't want to waste my time searching something if
>> there is nothing there to find.
>
> Sure there are, like wanting to search a car for completely different
> reasons (suspicion of, say, carrying weapons or other illegal but
> non-narcotic items, or just to give someone a hard time for mouthing off -
> not that I'm entirely opposed to the last, but it's still illegal)

Yeah, some people need attitude adjustments now and then, but I'm not
willing to risk a civil rights violation just to do it.

>
>> Second, a handler may get in his mind where he thinks contraband might be
>> and inadvertantly cause the dog to alert, failing certification. There
>> are so many different scenarios that the dogs have to go through during
>> certification that to have a dog paying attention to anything other than
>> the odor will cause the dog to false alert and fail. The less stimulus
>> from the handler the better.
>>
>
> I believe what you say but that still does not preclude a handler from
> training a dog to alert on command and still have the dog pass its
> certification test.

And yes, I'm sure the possibility is there to cause an alert but as I've
said before, it's not normal practice and if the guy does it once he'll do
it again. When it comes time to re-certify, that dog will be looking to the
handler for clues rather than to the area he's supposed to be sniffing. Bad
practices breed bad performance and bad results on certification.

--
---
jaybird
---
I am not the cause of your problems.
My actions are the result of your actions.
Your life is not my fault.

"Scott en Aztlán" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 01 Feb 2005 21:48:27 GMT, "jaybird" > wrote:
>
>>>>> Bull. The dog alerts to what ever the cop handling it wants you to
>>>>> think
>>>>> that it is alerting to regardless of what the dog is smelling so that
>>>>> he
>>>>> can intimidate you into giving up your constitutional rights.
>>>>
>>>>Nope, not the way it works. A dog can't certify if it just alerts to
>>>>anything the handler wants it to.
>>>
>>> Tell us more about the certification process. Specifically, what
>>> safeguards are in place to prevent a handler from simply simulating
>>> the desired results by only telling the dog to alert on the real drugs
>>> during the certification test?
>>
>>But the dog _is_ supposed to alert only on the real drugs.
>
> Yeah, I think we all understand that.
>
> The question is, how does the system prevent someone from doing
> something they are NOT supposed to do, like train the dog to "alert"
> when the handler wiggles his left pinky?
>
> You aren't evading the question, are you, officer?

Not at all. I believe I've answered it at length. The system prevents it
the best it can, as well as it can for any bad cop. The safeguards are
there and bad cops don't last long in a good system.

--
---
jaybird
---
I am not the cause of your problems.
My actions are the result of your actions.
Your life is not my fault.

"Scott en Aztlán" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 01 Feb 2005 23:49:45 GMT, "jaybird" > wrote:
>
>>> They could be trained to
>>> alert whenever the cop mutters "alert" under his breath.
>>
>>Nope... makes the dog unreliable and not meet case law established
>>criteria.
>
> How would you know... Unless you've tried it?

It's common in new handlers that they want to try and coach the dog to sniff
areas where they think drugs might be hidden. That makes the dog
concentrate more on the handler than the area to be sniffed so they're told
to let the dog work on his/her own. Once the handler gains confidence and
experience they learn that it only distracts the dog. You give the dog an
area and let them work it out.

--
---
jaybird
---
I am not the cause of your problems.
My actions are the result of your actions.
Your life is not my fault.