Drug Dog's Sniffer Called into Question

So the dog said (barked, scratched, whatever it is dogs do to tell people they find things) there were drugs in this guys car, the police search it, and find there are indeed drugs? Is that right? Sounds to me like the dog is no longer an issue, the car had stuff in it and that's what you have to deal with now.

One would THINK that would be the case, yes.

Ahh, the modern American judicial system.

Oh man.

"Yes, I had 50 sticks of TNT in my car for car bombing, but THAT dog had a history of false postives... so your case on my is invalid!"

That seriously sucks.

It is a reminder of the police-state tactics in the infamous Goose Creek videotape of the government school in South Carolina where children were forced to the floor and terrorized by dogs and cops with guns drawn. Nothing was found. see rexcurrydotnet

In other government schools, classes have been interrupted and the children were marched out and lined up to be harassed by a dog. It is a wonder why the kids weren't instructed to robotically chant the pledge of allegiance during the ordeals (and with the original straight-arm salute). A breed that is used often as drug dogs is the German Sheppard. The police state resembles the National Socialist German Workers Party (Nazis).

As an attorney, I am often consulted by people victimized in searches by dogs trained to smell drugs. A drug dog's skills are often overestimated because people anthropomorphize dogs. A humanlike quality that dogs have is that they are natural libertarians with no interest in the war on drugs.

I am the attorney who argued the original motion to suppress in Florida v. Gary Alan Matheson, that curbed drug dogs in Florida.

Matheson is presently awaiting decision by Florida's Supreme Court and the public has a rare opportunity to view a video of the justices' questions and the arguments linked at rexcurrydotnet

The Matheson case points out the lack of credibility of drug dogs and their employers.

Drug dogs are like humans in that they must be taught to approach peaceful people and search them, so that humans can be arrested, handcuffed and imprisoned for decades under modern prohibition. That is not an easy trick to teach a dog. It's easier to teach humans.

if any of yall were arrested following a search involving a warrant issued for probable cause based on testimony of an informant (or, even worse, a sworn officer) whose record of accuracy was inconsistent, you wouldnt argue the warrant should be quashed and evidence it produced excluded? 

law enforcement and the prosecution will diligently employ every legal--and, sometimes, less-than-legal--means at their disposal to deprive you of your liberty.  why shouldnt you vigorously avail yourself of your legal rights to preserve it?

law enforcement and the prosecution will diligently employ every legal--and, sometimes, less-than-legal--means at their disposal to deprive you of your liberty. why shouldnt you do the same to preserve it?

Sure, but they FOUND drugs in the car. Try to stick a false postive on that.

Sure, but they FOUND drugs in the car

it's notta great leap from there to 'finding' drugs in the cars of known dealers--whether or not theyre actually in possession.  our constitutional protection against illegal search and seizure involving vehicles has been dangerously narrowed as it is.  as much as i like dogs, a pattern of false alerts--in this case, record of 27-40% false alerts--shouldnt be tolerated because a. the dog can be influenced by its handler and b. dog testimony cant rebutted in court. 

Does the constitutional protection against illegal searches and seizures extend to motor vehicles? If I remember correctly, police don't need a search warrant to search one's vehicle.

police don't need a search warrant to search one's vehicle.

they can search a car pursuant to making stop involving a traffic violation.  for all practical purposes, that traffic violation thing obviates a warrant--unless the vehicle isnt occupied and is otherwise totally legal.   if you have a car legally parked in your driveway and no one is near or in it, i believe they would need a warrant.

Does the constitutional protection against illegal searches and seizures extend to motor vehicles? If I remember correctly, police don't need a search warrant to search one's vehicle.

Not a warrant, just probable cause. The search dog itself giving the signal that he's detected the presence of drug or explosives is not evidence, it is probable cause. It gives the police the right to search.

And I could swear I read about the issues concerning dogs and false positive readings, and the conclusion was that false positives usually come about from prior existence of drugs or explosives on the article being sniffed. If that's the case that should still be considered probable cause to search.

Just another ambulance chaser trying to make sure that "guilty" doesn't mean "he did it".

Not that I really blame the lawyer here, he is doing the best job he can defending an oxygen thief... But even oxygen thieves have a right to a lawyer. Funny how scum gets their rights, but would rather kill than respect rights for others.

The search dog itself giving the signal that he's detected the presence of drug or explosives is not evidence, it is probable cause. It gives the police the right to search. And I could swear I read about the issues concerning dogs and false positive readings, and the conclusion was that false positives usually come about from prior existence of drugs or explosives on the article being sniffed. If that's the case that should still be considered probable cause to search.

apparently it's not nearly that cut-and-dried cuz the state of florida has no express standard for dog training/certification/skill maintenance and it gets even more complex when residual odors and handler influence are factors.   i hadnt seen the link in the attorney's comment the first time i read it, but you can go to the link provided here and watch/hear 50 minutes of arguments before the fl supreme court...or attempt to read the transcript without the a/v provided.  (should you choose to do that, the first 5 mins of the clip is music..waiting for the justices to take the bench)

 Link

Kingbee, does that fact that this scum is no longer selling drugs to kids mean anything at all to you?? The lawyers isn't even making the argument that the using the dog is unconstitutional, or even that it was an illegal search. He's trying to throw "reasonable doubt" on the dog. As I said before, he has a job to do, and the fact that his client is guilty as sin is not helping much.

does that fact that this scum is no longer selling drugs to kids mean anything at all to you??

He's trying to throw "reasonable doubt" on the dog.

first of all, i wasnt defending the guy....merely pointing out it's not nearly as cut-and-dry as it appears at first glance.  apparently the fl supreme court is taking it seriously;it appears from their questions during that hearing, theyve been troubled about cases involving dogs and their handlers they hadda adjudicate when they were just ordinary judges.

it also seems as if--in this case and with this dog--there's some question as to the dog's original certification as well as the way in which his skills were maintained.

while this case may involve a guy who was transporting drugs, the fact that drugs were seized doesnt necessarily rule out misconduct and there's no way to question the dog. 

i might not find it so troubling had i not been forced to spend three days of my life locked up because a cop made a bad decision.  i might easily have been convicted had my lawyer not been able to question the circumstances and get an answer (rather than an 'arf') that so clearly revealed no basis whatsoever for the stop or the charge that the judge immediately dismissed the case.

using dogs to check international shipments or passenger baggage at an airport makes sense.  using a dog to justify a warantless search in the absence of measurable standards or without specific procedures that are clearly defined and adhered to by its handler risks dangerous compromise of our liberties.

using dogs to check international shipments or passenger baggage at an airport makes sense.

If it makes sense for the civil liberties in one case, then it makes sense in the other case. Either dogs are reliable, or they are not. If this case is successful a precendence against dogs will be set, and even those you happen to respect will be put into question.

I do see your points, I just don't agree.

If it makes sense for the civil liberties in one case, then it makes sense in the other case. Either dogs are reliable, or they are not

there's no denying a properly trained, properly handled dog is reliable.  there is reason to doubt this particular dog meets those standards.

beyond that, having adequately trained and handled dogs investigate shipments or baggage is considerably less potentially problematic. should a suitcase or container cause the dog to alert on residual scent molecules (an indicator it may have previously held drugs), agents can open and inspect them.  if contraband is found, the consignor/consignee or passenger can be arrested and charged.  if nothing's found, no harm, no foul.  (if youve flown anywhere since 911, your bags may have set off the ion detector used to sniff out explosives--not an uncommon occurence).  the handler is presumably checking things at random outside the presence of a person who might otherwise match the handlers subjective profile. 

on the street, a person's or vehicle appearance may factor into the procedure because the handler--unlike the dog--is not going to be unbiased.   the dog cant testify whether its actions were 'cued'--perhaps even unconsciously--by the handler.  nor can the dog explain, hey i smelled methamphetamine residue altho some other drug it isnt trained to locate is subsequently found. 

Once again, apparently the fact that the dog DID, in fact find drugs means that (while the dog may have been wrong before) it wasn't wrong this time.

The lawyer sounds like he's reaching for something like, "If the muzzle don't fit, you must acquit".

Like I said, the lawyer's job is to do his best at defend this oxygen thief, it is a piss poor argument, but if that's all he has to work with then more power to him.

"If the muzzle don't fit, you must acquit".

i hope he demonstrates the muzzle for the jury